Attachment 4 Salinas ICE Terven Ave at Airport Final Report

August 2021
Copyright © Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION
US 101 SOUTHBOUND RAMPS AT TERVEN AVENUE/

AIRPORT BOULEVARD

SALINAS, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Ave.

Salinas, California 93901
831-758-7241
Prepared by:

INTERSECTION CONTROL EVALUATION
FOR
US 101 SOUTHBOUND RAMPS AT TERVEN AVENUE/

AIRPORT BOULEVARD
Prepared for:

City of Salinas
200 Lincoln Ave.

Salinas, California 93901
831-758-7241
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall
Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
916-858-5800
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

Ó August 2021

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 1 of 11 ends

Intersection Control Evaluation
US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/Airport Boulevard in Salinas, CA

INTRODUCTION
An Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) was completed for the intersection of Terven Avenue and Airport Boulevard (the “study intersection”) in Salinas, California. The proposed project assumed in the ICE analysis is consistent with the Transportation Impact Analysis – Draft for Airport Industrial Park 1(“Project TIA”) , prepared by Kimley-Horn in September 2019. The study intersection will be impacted by the planned development of an industrial park project at the Salinas Municipal Airport which includes the proposed construction of 65,166 square feet of warehousing and 65,166 square feet of light industrial land uses (“Project”) located on the east side of US 101 across Airport Boulevard.

The existing four-legged intersection operates as signalized intersection with significant vehicle delay and queuing at each of the approaches. Background and project growths are expected to increase demand at the study intersection until the construction of Harris Road interchange is complete. The new interchange south of Salinas will create a shift in traffic volume and it will alleviate some of the traffic demand at the study intersection. Two of the intersection’s legs are on/off ramps for US 101 and will need to address HDM (highway design manual) standards. The purpose of this ICE is to determine a viable intersection layout to accommodate demand until the Harris Road interchange project is completed, and demand is relieved at the project intersection. The existing layout’s non-standard HDM designs will be noted.

The following intersection control improvement alternatives were evaluated in this ICE Analysis:
· Existing signal (no improvements)
· Improved traffic signal
· Roundabout

EXISTING CONDITION AND PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
Existing Conditions
Airport Boulevard is a primary southwest to northeast arterial between industrial facilities and the Salinas Municipal Airport. US 101 splits Airport Boulevard in half. The project intersection is located along Airport Boulevard, just to the west of US 101. Airport Boulevard has two lanes in each direction with a two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) and has a posted speed limit of 45 MPH. The northeasterly leg of the intersection is comprised of US 101 southbound (SB) on and off ramps. Terven Avenue runs northwest to southeast between South Sanborn Road to the north and merges with Airport Boulevard just south of the project intersection. Terven Avenue, the northwest leg of the intersection, has one lane in each direction with a posted speed limit of 25 MPH. The existing intersection has a continuous right-turn bypass lane on the eastbound (EB) approach and a yield-controlled right-turn bypass lane on the northbound (NB) approach onto the SB US 101 loop on-ramp. There are sidewalks on both sides of Terven Avenue and along the north side of Airport Boulevard. The existing intersection includes crosswalks across the north and west legs.

There are no present bicycle facilities.

Analysis Scenarios
D e s i g n y e a r t r a f f i c s c e n a r i o s w e r e d e v e l o p e d u s i n g t h e t r a f f i c v o l u m e p r o v i d e d i n t h e P r o j e c t T I A t o establish project baseline conditions and to evaluate the effectiveness of intersection control strategies at 1 Transportation Impact Analysis – Draft for Airport Industrial Park, Kimley-Horn, September, 2019.

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 2 of 11 ends

the study intersection. As directed by the city of Salinas (the “City”), TAMC, and Caltrans District 4, the weekday AM and PM peak-hour traffic analyses were completed for the following scenarios:
· Opening Year Plus Project (2025) Conditions
· Includes project and background development anticipated to occur by the time the project is constructed. The volume forecasts are based on a list of pending and approved development projects provided by the City.
· Service Life Plus Project and Median Closures (2035) Conditions · Includes the project, background growth, and rerouted vehicles from anticipated median c l o s u r e s a t f i v e i n t e r s e c t i o n s s o u t h o f t h e s t u d y i n t e rs e c t i o n . T h i s i s t h e c r i t i c a l y e a r – d e m a n d a t t h e p r o j e c t i n t e r s e c t i o n i s t h e g r e a t e s t i t w i l l b e . O n c e t h e H a r r i s R o a d interchange project is constructed, demand at the project intersection will be reduced. · Service Life Plus Project after Interchange Opens (2036) Conditions · Includes the project and the decreased demand as a result of the shift in traffic from the completion of Harris Road interchange.
· Design Life Plus Project (2045) Conditions
· Based on Cumulative plus Project volumes provided on Figures 13 of the original TIA.

See Appendix A for the intersection traffic volumes and heavy vehicle percentages that were used for the intersection analysis. In addition, Appendix B includes list of assumptions made for the ICE analysis of the study intersection.

The Existing Signal is projected to operate at LOS F for the peak 2035 design year, with a maximum delay o f 1 1 0 . 1 s e c o n d s a n d a m a x i m u m 9 5th percentile queue of 875 feet on WB approach. T a b l e 1 below summarizes the operations for the existing traffic signal. See Appendix C for existing traffic signal synchro operational analysis worksheets.

Table 1: Existing Signal Operations
AM PM
Design
Year LOS Delay
(s)
95% Queue
(ft)
(approach)
LOS Delay
(s)
95% Queue
(ft)
(approach)
2025 F 81.0 725 (WB) E 64.3 675 (NB)
2035 F 110.1 875 (WB) E 76.0 750 (NB)
2036 E 71.1 650 (WB) D 40.7 250 (NB)
2045 E 83.1 700 (WB) D 42.7 275 (NB)
Figure 1 illustrates the existing intersection control as well as potential design constraints and considerations. The existing design constraints and considerations at the study intersection include:

1. US 101 Ramp

2. Bridge overpass with available width for three vehicle travel lanes along with bike lane and sidewalk on each side of the bridge

3. Valero gas station right-of-way

4. PBI warehouse right-of-way
ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 3 of 11 ends

Figure 1: Existing Design Constraints on Improved Intersection Geometry Planned Improvements
The proposed interchange at Harris Road which is planned to be fully constructed at around year 2035 will alleviate some of the demand at the study intersection. Because of this, the worst operations are expected to occur right before the interchange is completed. We assume construction of the Harris Road interchange will be completed at around year 2035.
1 2
3 4
1 ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 4 of 11 ends

Proposed Intersection Control Alternatives
Two intersection control alternatives were ultimately considered in the ICE Analysis for the intersection of US 101 Ramps at Terven Avenue/Airport Boulevard.The existing lane configuration was not deemed viable because it does not meet Caltrans LOS threshold of D. See Appendix D and Appendix E for the operational analysis worksheets for each alternative. The preliminary concept layouts for each alternative based on the operational analyses are included in Appendix F.

Alternative A: Improved Traffic Signal
This alternative includes dual, signal-controlled EB right-turn bypass lanes to accommodate the high right- turn volumes in the PM peak hour. The improved WB approach has dual left-turn lanes to accommodate the demand in the AM peak hour. The worst operations occur during the 2035 AM peak hour with a LOS of D and average delay of 51.9 seconds. The max 95 th percentile queue length is the WB approach with 7 2 5 f e e t , w h i c h s p i l l s i n t o t h e a u x i l i a r y l a n e o n S B U S 1 0 1 . S e eT a b l e 2 b e l o w f o r t h e s u m m a r y o f Alternative A analysis. Figure 2 to the right shows a concept layout of the improved traffic signal.

Table 2: Improved Traffic Signal Operations
AM PM
Design
Year LOS Delay
(s)
95% Queue (ft)
(approach) LOS Delay
(s)
95% Queue (ft)
(approach)
2025 D 44.3 575 (WB) D 40.7 350 (SB)
2035 D 51.9 725 (WB) D 43.7 500 (EB)
2036 C 32.7 400 (WB) C 27.0 175 (EB)
2045 D 35.8 425 (WB) C 30.6 275 (EB)
Figure 2: Improved Traffic Signal Concept Layout

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 5 of 11 ends

Alternative B: Roundabout
This alternative includes a multi-lane roundabout with two WB through lanes to accommodate heavy off- ramp volumes. The worst operations will occur during the 2035 AM peak hour with a LOS C. The operations will improve once the Harris Road interchange opens. The maximum 95 th percentile queue length occurs on the WB approach at year 2035 and is 325 feet. The WB queue will extend into the US 101 SB off-ramp but not into the auxiliary lane. Table 3 below includes a summary of the roundabout operations. Figure 3 to the right shows a concept layout of the proposed roundabout.

Table 3: Roundabout Operations
AM PM
Design
Year LOS Delay
(s)
95% Queue (ft)
(approach) LOS Delay (s) 95% Queue (ft)
(approach)
2025 C 15.2 225 (WB) B 11.8 125 (SB)
2035 C 21.7 325 (WB) C 16.0 175 (SB)
2036 A 9.7 125 (WB) A 6.1 50 (NB)
2045 B 11.0 150 (WB) A 6.6 50 (SB)
Figure 3: Roundabout Control Concept Layout

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 6 of 11 ends

Non-Standard Features
Table 4 identifies all known existing design deficiencies. Note that these are not necessarily all the non- standard features. These are the major design deficiencies we were able to identify without a sight visit nor topo survey.

Figure 4: Summary of Non-Standard Features

SUMMARY OF KEY PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Five performance metrics are evaluated at the study intersection to calculate the Benefit Cost (B/C) Ratio which measures the expected return on investment for each proposed intersection control. The performance measures used to calculate the benefits of the proposed improvement compared to the existing condition, or no project alternative are:
· Safety Benefit (of the proposed intersection control type) · Delay Reduction Benefit (of the proposed intersection control type) · Emission Reduction Benefit (of the proposed intersection control type) Performance measures used to calculate the conceptual level costs of the proposed intersection control improvement compared to the existing condition, or no project alternative are:
· Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost (added costs of the proposed intersection control type) · Initial Capital Cost (added costs of the proposed intersection control type) Refer to Appendix G for a detailed description of each performance measure and the Cal B/C 2020 Value Comparison Table2 that were used in this B/C Analysis.

PERFORMANCE MEASURE SUMMARY
The following figures show the cost of key performance measures for each control types at the intersection of US 101 SB Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard assuming 20-years of intersection operations to calculate life-cycle costs. Each intersection control type corresponds to the proposed alternatives discussed on pages 2 and 3. Table 5 below summarizes the costs associated with each alternative. 2 Cal B/C 2020 Value Comparison Table, Caltrans, January 2020.

HDM Standards Existing Signal Proposed Signal Proposed Roundabout 309.2(1)(a) - Minimum vertical clearance
over the roadbed of the state facility 16'-
6"
Posted sign stating 15'-1"
clearance over the roadbed on
the entrance to US 101 SB
Won't be able to address Won't be able to address
501.3 - Minimum interchange spacing shall
be one mile in urban areas
Less than 1 mile to the
interchange at S Sanborn Rd
Won't be able to address Won't be able to address
504.2(2) - Minimum deceleration length
(DL) shown on Figure 504.2B shall be
provided prior to the first curve beyond the
DL is approximately 300' which
requires a radius of 1,000'. The
current radius is 215'
No Change No Change
504.2(2) - Design of freeway entrances and
exits should conform to the standard
designs in Figures 504.2A-B
Entrance does not match
standard designs in 504.2A
No Change No Change
504.3(8) - Radii for loop ramps should
normally range from 150' to 200'
Loop radius is about 100' No Change Loop radius modified to 90' 504.8 - For new construction or major
reconstruction, access rights shall be
acquired on the opposite side of the local
road from ramp terminals to preclude
driveways or local roads within the ramp
The Valero currently has an
access driveway within the ramp
intersection.

No Change Access to Valero gas station
will not be accessible via exit
ramp.

HDM Non-Standard Design Exceptions
ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 7 of 11 ends

Table 5: Performance Measure Summary
Benefit Performance Measure Summary
Safety Preferred Alternative:

Based on the lowest predicted life-cycle cost
for safety, the preferred intersection control
type for this intersection is a roundabout. See
Appendix H for the Interactive Highway
Safety Design Manual (IHSDM)’s KABCO
values used for the safety analysis.

Delay Preferred Alternative:

Based solely on the lowest predicted life-
cycle cost for delay, the preferred
intersection control type for this
intersection is a roundabout.

Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions 177,612$ 176,442$ 56,129$
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions 3,729,860$ 3,705,292$ 1,178,719$ Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 27,530 14,847 3,981
Annual Cost 395,666$ 214,887$ 58,386$
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost 8,308,990$ 4,512,637$ 1,226,107$ Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost 25,879$ 27,455$ 35,287$
Total Discounted Life Cycle Cost 351,700$ 373,123$ 479,559$ Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 8,060$ 8,060$ 2,520$
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs 109,538$ 109,538$ 34,248$ Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs -$ 45,639$ 36,511$
Total O&M Costs 109,538$ 155,177$ 70,759$
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Approximate Initial Capital Costs $0 $743,300 $3,300,000

LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS

PERFORMANCE MEASURE LIFE CYCLE COST (NET PRESENT VALUE) Safety
Delay
Emissions
Initial Capital
O&M

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 8 of 11 ends

Emissions Preferred Alternative:

Based solely on the life-cycle cost for
emissions, the preferred intersection
control type for this intersection is a signal.

Cost Performance Measure Summary
O&M Preferred Alternative:

Based solely on lowest expected annual O&M
costs, the preferred intersection control type
for this intersection is a roundabout.

Initial Capital Costs Preferred Alternative:

Based solely on lowest expected range of
Initial Capital Costs, the preferred intersection
control type for this intersection is a signal.

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY
T h e b a r c h a r t t o t h e l e f t c o m p a r e s t h e peak hour intersection delay for design
year between the improved traffic signal
and roundabout. The improved traffic
signal operates with considerable delay
compared to the roundabout.

The bar chart to the left illustrates the
calculated average speeds through the
study intersection used to determine AB
2766 cost effectiveness. The study limit on
each le g was ba sed on the lar gest of the
95% queue lengths of all the intersection
control types. The improved traffic signal
offers the highest average speed when
compared to the roundabout.

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 9 of 11 ends

B/C ANALYSIS SUMMARY
B/C Ratio Scoring
The following equation illustrates the B/C ratio and Table 6 provides the description of B/C ratio scoring:
⁄۱۰ Ratio Score =
ܛ܍ܚܝܛ܉܍ۻ܍܋ܖ܉ܕܚܗ܎ܚ܍۾ܜܑ܎܍ܖ܍۰
ܛ܍ܚܝܛ܉܍ۻ܍܋ܖ܉ܕܚܗ܎ܚ܍۾ܜܛܗ۱
Table 6: Description of B/C Ratio Scoring
B/C Ratio Score Description
B/C = 1.00 A B/C ratio of 1.00 is a neutral rating. This indicates that the ROI for existing signal is equal to improved signal/roundabout.

B/C < 1.00 A B/C ratio less than 1.00 indicates that the existing signal will provide a better ROI when compared to improved signal/roundabout.

B/C > 1.00 A B/C ratio greater than 1.00 indicates thatimproved signal/roundabout provides a betterROI when compared to the existing signal.

B/C = NA-R When the cost of the improved signal/roundabout is less than the cost of the existing signal and the improved signal/roundabout provides benefit over the existing signal, a B/C ratio cannot be computed. This special case is denoted by “NA-R” and indicates that improved signal/roundabout provides a better ROI when compared to the existing signal.

The B/C score is based on the net present value using a discount rate of 4% through the life-cycle duration of 20 years for each of the five performance measures.

Note: ROI=Return of Investment
The summary results of the stage 1 B/C analysis at the study intersection are summarized in Table 7. The stage 1 B/C analysis is based on comparing the improved signal and roundabout alternatives to the existing signal. Both the improved traffic signal and the roundabout have B/C ratios greater than 1.0, which indicate that they are both cost-effective intersection control types when compared to the existing signal.

Table 7: Summary of Life-Cycle B/C Analysis – Stage 1 B/C Ratios A second stage of B/C analysis was performed to determine the preferred alternative intersection control type between the improved traffic signal and a roundabout. Total benefits and costs were calculated based on directly comparing the roundabout to the signal. The preferred intersection control type, shown inTable 8 is based solely on the B/C score and the expected return of investment for the 20-year life-cycle starting in 2025 and ending 2045. See Appendix I for the Life-Cycle B/C worksheet which includes a detailed breakdown of each performance measure life-cycle costs at the study intersection.

Added Benefits Compared to Existing (Signal) Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout Safety -$ 24,569$ 2,551,141$
Delay -$ 3,796,353$ 7,082,884$
Emission -$ (21,423)$ (127,859)$
Total Benefits -$ 3,799,498$ 9,506,166$
Added Cost Compared to Existing (Signal) Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout O&M -$ 45,639$ (38,779)$
Initial Capital -$ 743,300$ 3,300,000$
Total Costs -$ 788,939$ 3,261,221$
B/C Ratio Compared to Existing (Signal) N/A 4.82 2.91

LIFE CYCLE BENEFIT COST RATIO
Total Benefits ( B )
Total Costs ( C )
ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 10 of 11 ends

Table 8: Summary of Life-Cycle B/C Analysis – Stage 2 B/C Ratios Figure 6 shows the accum ul ated cost of
all five performance measures for each
proposed alternative. This figure reflects
the B/C ratio results between each
alternative. The roundabout starts with a
larger accumulated cost because of the
greater initial capital cost, but because of
the signal’s greater societal costs the
roundabout provides a greater return on
investment after 2030. The slopes start to
decrease in year 2035 due to the reduced
demand once the Harris Road
interchange opens. The roundabout is the
preferred intersection control type for
the entire 20-year analysis time period.

Figure 6: Accumulated Costs Between Proposed Alternatives

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
An analysis of the estimated benefit and cost performance measures indicate that, when forecast traffic volumes are considered for a minimum 20-year service life, a roundabout-controlled intersection is the preferred alternative at the intersection of US 101 SB ramps at Terven Avenue/Airport Boulevard. · The existing signal will have the longest delays and queue lengths out of all the intersection control alternatives at the study intersection.
· The improved traffic signal will perform at LOS D service year (2035) conditions with a maximum 95th percentile queue length of 725 feet on the US 101 SB off-ramp in the AM peak period and 500 feet on the EB Airport Boulevard approach in the PM peak period. The improved traffic signal will operate at LOS C and D in the 2045 peak periods.
· The roundabout will perform at LOS A and C at service year (2035) conditions with a maximum 95th percentile queue length of 175 feet on the Terven Ave approach in the PM peak hour and 325 feet on the US 101 SB off-ramp in the AM peak hour. The roundabout operates at LOS A and B in the 2045 peak periods.
· The B/C ratios for the intersection are 4.82 and 2.91 respectively, when the improved traffic signal and roundabout are compared to the existing signal. Since the B/C ratios are greater than 1.0, both improved signal and roundabout are more cost-effective and preferred when compared to the existing signal.
· The B/C ratio is 2.31 when comparing the roundabout and the improved traffic signal alternatives B/C
( A ) ( B ) ( C ) = ( B - A ) ( D ) ( E ) ( F ) = ( C + D ) ( G ) = ( E / F ) High 817,630$ 2,970,000$ 2,152,370$ 2,067,952$ 2.81
Low 668,970$ 3,630,000$ 2,961,030$ 2,876,612$ 2.02
Roundabout Budget 743,300$ 6,640,822$ 5,897,522$ 5,813,103$ 1.00 Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations for Proposed Signal (A) vs Roundabout (B) B/C Target
Proposed
Signal
Initial Capital Cost
Roundabout Added Cost
Proj ect Cons tra i nts
Added O&M Cost for
Roundabout Total Benefits Total Costs
(84,418)$ 5,813,103$
Note: The 'High' value calculates the highest Roundabout B/C. Assuming the high Proposed Signal ICC and the low Roundabout ICC. The 'Low' value calculates the lowest Roundabout B/C. Assuming the low Proposed Signal ICC and the high Roundabout ICC.

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard

Page 11 of 11 ends

to each other to determine the most preferred intersection control type at the study intersection.

The roundabout alternative has a total added benefit of about $5,706,667 when compared to the signal.

The most noteworthy performance measures driving the B/C Ratios aredelay. The roundabout and traffic control alternatives have an added delay benefit of greater than $7,000,000 and $3,600,000 respectively when compared to the existing signal.

The existing intersection does not conform to the Highway Design Manual standards. Neither of the proposed alternatives will improve any of the existing non-standard designs due to high demand and tight constraints. The proposed roundabout will modify the US 101 SB on-ramp to have a radius of 90’ (currently 100’) and will eliminate access to the Valero gas station from the US 101 SB off-ramp.

Appendix
Appendix A – Traffic Volumes
Appendix B – List of Assumptions
Appendix C – Existing Traffic Signal Synchro Operational Analysis Appendix D – Improved Traffic Signal Synchro Operational Analysis Appendix E – Roundabout SIDRA Operational Analysis
Appendix F – Preliminary Concept Layouts for Improved Traffic Signal and Roundabout Appendix G – Description of Benefit Cost Performance Measures and Caltrans Cal B/C 2020 Value Comparison Table
Appendix H – HSM Predictive Method Safety Analysis IHSDM KABCO Values Appendix I – Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Ratio Worksheet
ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix A
Traffic Volumes
US 101 SB Ramps at Terven Ave/Airport Blvd
2025
Vehicles 0 283 132 100 0 483 511 60 0 26 143 77 0 74 25 345 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % - 10.0% 8.0% 28.0% - 2.0% 14.0% 2.0% - 43.0% 10.0% 12.0% - 27.0% 55.0% 21.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2025
Vehicles 0 284 181 263 0 254 233 30 0 68 154 90 0 122 53 932 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % - 10.0% 10.0% 6.0% - 7.0% 26.0% 23.0% - 19.0% 9.0% 37.0% - 6.0% 28.0% 4.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2035
Vehicles 0 305 142 167 0 558 551 65 0 28 153 83 0 80 27 371 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % - 10.0% 8.0% 28.0% - 2.0% 14.0% 2.0% - 43.0% 10.0% 12.0% - 27.0% 55.0% 21.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2035
Vehicles 0 306 194 323 0 333 251 32 0 73 166 97 0 131 57 1004 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % - 10.0% 10.0% 6.0% - 7.0% 26.0% 23.0% - 19.0% 9.0% 37.0% - 6.0% 28.0% 4.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NB
NB
NB
0 0 0
SB
WB SB
Scenario 2 - Service Life (2035) Before Interchange Opens - CRITICAL VOLUME AM
Source:

PM
0 0 0
EB
EBSBWB
WB
NOTE: Minimum PHF used in operations analysis is =0.70
PM
US 101 SB Off-Ramp at Terven Ave/Airport Blvd
10/28/2020
Scenario 1 - Opening Year (2025)
AM

NB WB SB EB
0 0
EB
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0

US 101 SB Ramps at Terven Ave/Airport Blvd
2036
Vehicles 0 272 148 102 0 436 336 78 0 9 90 29 0 71 21 273 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % - 10.0% 8.0% 28.0% - 2.0% 14.0% 2.0% - 43.0% 10.0% 12.0% - 27.0% 55.0% 21.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2036
Vehicles 0 140 96 202 0 202 170 29 0 36 86 48 0 70 26 584 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % - 10.0% 10.0% 6.0% - 7.0% 26.0% 23.0% - 19.0% 9.0% 37.0% - 6.0% 28.0% 4.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2045
Vehicles 0 291 158 108 0 464 360 84 0 10 96 31 0 76 23 292 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % - 10.0% 8.0% 28.0% - 2.0% 14.0% 2.0% - 43.0% 10.0% 12.0% - 27.0% 55.0% 21.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2045
Vehicles 0 148 99 217 0 240 182 31 0 38 101 51 0 75 28 629 PHF 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Truck % - 10.0% 10.0% 6.0% - 7.0% 26.0% 23.0% - 19.0% 9.0% 37.0% - 6.0% 28.0% 4.0% Pedestrians
Bicycles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
Source:
0 0 0 0

NB WB SB EB
AM

NB WB SB EB
EBSB
NB
AM
WB SB
Scenario 3 - Service Life (2036) After Interchange Opens PM
0 NB
PM
0 0
WB
0 0
EB
0 0 0 0
Scenario 4 - Design Life (2045)

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix B
List of Assumptions
ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021

LIST OF ASSUMPTIONS
Traffic Data
§ Existing peak-hour turning movement volumes. Traffic Count Data obtained from Airport Industrial Park TIA (2019).
§ Opening Year Plus Project (PP) (2025) peak-hour turning movement volumes.Includes project and background development anticipated to occur by the time the project is constructed. The volume forecasts are based on a list of pending and approved development projects provided by the City. § Service Life PP and Median Closures (2035) peak-hour turning movement volumes. Background Volum es wer e grown at th e AMBA G Model an nual g r owth rate of 0.75% for 10 years to 2035.

Additional volumes were added from anticipated median closures at five intersections south of the study intersection.
§ Service Life PP after Interchange Closes (2036) peak-hour turning movement volumes. Reduction in background Volumes were determined using the AMBAG Model annual growth rate of 0.75% for 9 years from the 2045 volumes down to the 2036 volumes. § Design Life PP (2045) peak-hour turning movement volumes. Based on Cumulative PP volumes provided in figure 13 of the Airport Industrial Park TIA. § Opening Year PP (2025) ADT. The ADTs are calculated using the PM peak hour traffic count data. § Terven Avenue: 20,680
§ Airport Boulevard: 17,140
§ Service Life PP and Median Closures (2035) ADT. The ADTs are calculated using the PM peak hour traffic count data.
§ Terven Avenue: 23,263
§ Airport Boulevard: 18,466
§ Service Life PP after Interchange Closes PP (2036) ADT. The ADTs are calculated using the PM peak hour traffic count data.
§ Terven Avenue: 13,207
§ Airport Boulevard: 10,385
§ Design Life PP (2045) ADT. The ADTs are calculated using the PM peak hour traffic count data. § Terven Avenue: 14,340
§ Airport Boulevard: 11,130
§ Pedestrian counts. Not provided.
§ Bicycle counts. Not provided.

Opinion of Probable Cost
§ Initial capital costs. Estimated ranges of initial capital costs from previous comparable projects.

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix C
Existing Traffic Signal Synchro Operational Analysis
US 101 SB at Terven Ave Opening Year PP (2025)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB Ramps Page 1 Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 27 525 620 451 109 183 84
v/c Ratio 0.52 0.15 1.26 0.66 0.98 0.25 0.60 0.23
Control Delay 59.1 43.3 173.1 39.5 77.5 5.7 51.5 3.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.1 43.3 173.1 39.5 77.5 5.7 51.5 3.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 17 ~467 207 317 0 120 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 105 45 #718 291 #557 34 206 16
Internal Link Dist (ft) 256 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 50 50
Base Capacity (vph) 270 270 416 937 462 439 304 367
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.30 0.10 1.26 0.66 0.98 0.25 0.60 0.23 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Opening Year PP (2025)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB Ramps Page 2 Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 74 25 0 483 511 60 283 132 100 26 143 77 Future Volume (veh/h) 74 25 0 483 511 60 283 132 100 26 143 77 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1500 1085 0 1870 1693 1693 1781 1781 1485 1752 1752 1722 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 27 0 525 555 65 308 143 0 28 155 84 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 27 55 0 2 14 14 8 8 28 10 10 12
Cap, veh/h 98 145 0 426 882 103 329 153 50 278 276
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 1085 0 1781 2901 339 1176 546 1259 266 1473 1457 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 27 0 525 307 313 451 0 0 183 0 84 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1428 1085 0 1781 1608 1632 1723 0 1259 1739 0 1457 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.1 2.4 0.0 26.3 18.1 18.2 28.1 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 5.5 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.1 2.4 0.0 26.3 18.1 18.2 28.1 0.0 0.0 10.5 0.0 5.5 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.21 0.68 1.00 0.15 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 98 145 0 426 489 496 482 0 329 0 276 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.19 0.00 1.23 0.63 0.63 0.94 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.30 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 277 145 0 426 489 496 482 0 329 0 276 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.6 42.3 0.0 41.9 32.9 32.9 38.6 0.0 0.0 40.4 0.0 38.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.7 2.8 0.0 123.7 6.0 6.0 27.6 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 2.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.7 0.8 0.0 25.6 7.5 7.7 15.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 0.0 2.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.2 45.2 0.0 165.5 38.9 38.9 66.2 0.0 0.0 47.1 0.0 41.2 LnGrp LOS E D A F D D E A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 107 1145 451 A 267
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.4 97.0 66.2 45.2
Approach LOS E F E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 20.0 25.0 11.2 38.8 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.3 14.7 * 21 21.3 29.7 30.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.3 4.4 12.5 8.1 20.2 30.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 2.4 0.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 81.0
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Opening Year PP (2025)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 58 276 286 506 286 241 98
v/c Ratio 0.61 0.20 0.83 0.38 1.11 0.57 0.79 0.31
Control Delay 58.8 41.9 64.7 35.4 115.7 24.9 63.9 6.3
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 58.8 41.9 64.7 35.4 115.7 24.9 63.9 6.3
Queue Length 50th (ft) 93 36 191 86 ~422 98 169 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 157 77 #315 135 #675 201 #316 28 Internal Link Dist (ft) 256 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 50 50
Base Capacity (vph) 320 323 391 748 455 506 306 316
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.42 0.18 0.71 0.38 1.11 0.57 0.79 0.31 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Opening Year PP (2025)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 53 0 254 233 30 284 181 263 68 154 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 122 53 0 254 233 30 284 181 263 68 154 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1485 0 1796 1515 1515 1752 1752 1811 1767 1767 1352 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 58 0 276 253 33 309 197 0 74 167 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 28 0 7 26 26 10 10 6 9 9 37
Cap, veh/h 164 278 0 308 698 90 293 187 102 230 218
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.19 0.00 0.18 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1485 0 1711 2563 331 1038 662 1535 534 1206 1144 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 133 58 0 276 141 145 506 0 0 241 0 98 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1485 0 1711 1439 1455 1700 0 1535 1740 0 1144 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.2 3.6 0.0 17.2 8.6 8.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 8.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.2 3.6 0.0 17.2 8.6 8.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 8.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.23 0.61 1.00 0.31 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 164 278 0 308 392 396 480 0 332 0 218 V/C Ratio(X) 0.81 0.21 0.00 0.90 0.36 0.37 1.05 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.45 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 337 278 0 413 392 396 480 0 332 0 218 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.4 37.5 0.0 43.7 32.0 32.1 39.1 0.0 0.0 41.5 0.0 39.1 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.9 1.7 0.0 17.5 2.6 2.6 56.1 0.0 0.0 13.0 0.0 6.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.1 1.5 0.0 8.5 3.2 3.3 19.6 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 2.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.3 39.2 0.0 61.2 34.6 34.7 95.2 0.0 0.0 54.5 0.0 45.6 LnGrp LOS E D A E C C F A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 191 562 506 A 339
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.2 47.7 95.2 51.9
Approach LOS D D F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 23.4 25.7 25.0 14.1 35.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.3 14.7 * 21 21.3 29.7 30.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 19.2 5.6 16.2 10.2 10.8 32.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.3 1.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 64.3
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Salinas Airport TIA Existing Plus Project
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn & Associates Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 29 607 626 486 182 196 90
v/c Ratio 0.54 0.16 1.47 0.67 1.06 0.42 0.65 0.25
Control Delay 59.5 43.2 255.0 40.0 97.6 14.9 53.9 4.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.5 43.2 255.0 40.0 97.6 14.9 53.9 4.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 60 18 ~593 211 ~378 30 131 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 112 46 #862 297 #621 99 #223 21
Internal Link Dist (ft) 256 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 50 50
Base Capacity (vph) 269 269 414 931 460 437 303 366
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.32 0.11 1.47 0.67 1.06 0.42 0.65 0.25 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Salinas Airport TIA Existing Plus Project
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn & Associates Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 27 0 558 511 65 305 142 167 28 153 83 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 27 0 558 511 65 305 142 167 28 153 83 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1500 1085 0 1870 1693 1693 1781 1781 1485 1752 1752 1722 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 29 0 607 555 71 332 154 0 30 166 90 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 27 55 0 2 14 14 8 8 28 10 10 12
Cap, veh/h 106 145 0 426 856 109 329 153 50 278 276
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 1085 0 1781 2869 366 1177 546 1259 266 1472 1457 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 29 0 607 310 316 486 0 0 196 0 90 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1428 1085 0 1781 1608 1627 1723 0 1259 1738 0 1457 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.6 2.6 0.0 26.3 18.5 18.6 30.8 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 5.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.6 2.6 0.0 26.3 18.5 18.6 30.8 0.0 0.0 11.3 0.0 5.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.22 0.68 1.00 0.15 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 106 145 0 426 480 485 482 0 329 0 276 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.20 0.00 1.43 0.65 0.65 1.01 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.33 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 277 145 0 426 480 485 482 0 329 0 276 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.2 42.4 0.0 41.9 33.6 33.6 39.6 0.0 0.0 40.8 0.0 38.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 16.6 3.1 0.0 204.6 6.6 6.6 42.9 0.0 0.0 7.8 0.0 3.1 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.9 0.8 0.0 35.2 7.8 7.9 18.1 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 2.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 66.8 45.5 0.0 246.5 40.2 40.2 82.5 0.0 0.0 48.5 0.0 41.7 LnGrp LOS E D A F D D F A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 116 1233 486 A 286
Approach Delay, s/veh 61.5 141.7 82.5 46.4
Approach LOS E F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 20.0 25.0 11.9 38.1 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.3 14.7 * 21 21.3 29.7 30.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.3 4.6 13.3 8.6 20.6 32.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.2 2.4 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 110.9
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Service Life PP (2035)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 62 362 308 544 351 259 105
v/c Ratio 0.63 0.25 0.93 0.41 1.21 0.70 0.85 0.33
Control Delay 59.3 43.8 76.0 36.2 149.5 32.6 71.7 7.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.3 43.8 76.0 36.2 149.5 32.6 71.7 7.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 100 40 261 95 ~485 150 185 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 166 81 #476 147 #748 278 #353 35 Internal Link Dist (ft) 256 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 50 50
Base Capacity (vph) 317 320 388 751 451 503 303 314
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.45 0.19 0.93 0.41 1.21 0.70 0.85 0.33 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Service Life PP (2035)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 57 0 333 251 32 306 194 323 73 166 97 Future Volume (veh/h) 131 57 0 333 251 32 306 194 323 73 166 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1485 0 1796 1515 1515 1752 1752 1811 1767 1767 1352 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 142 62 0 362 273 35 333 211 0 79 180 105 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 28 0 7 26 26 10 10 6 9 9 37
Cap, veh/h 173 214 0 389 695 88 292 185 101 229 217
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.23 0.27 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1485 0 1711 2569 326 1040 659 1535 531 1209 1144 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 142 62 0 362 152 156 544 0 0 259 0 105 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1485 0 1711 1439 1456 1700 0 1535 1740 0 1144 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 4.1 0.0 22.8 9.4 9.6 30.8 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 9.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 4.1 0.0 22.8 9.4 9.6 30.8 0.0 0.0 15.6 0.0 9.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.22 0.61 1.00 0.31 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 173 214 0 389 389 394 477 0 330 0 217 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.29 0.00 0.93 0.39 0.40 1.14 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.48 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 335 214 0 410 389 394 477 0 330 0 217 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.4 42.0 0.0 41.5 32.6 32.7 39.5 0.0 0.0 42.3 0.0 39.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 10.8 3.4 0.0 27.1 2.9 3.0 85.7 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 7.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.3 1.7 0.0 12.1 3.5 3.6 23.5 0.0 0.0 8.3 0.0 2.9 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 59.2 45.4 0.0 68.7 35.5 35.7 125.2 0.0 0.0 59.3 0.0 47.2 LnGrp LOS E D A E D D F A E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 204 670 544 A 364
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.0 53.5 125.2 55.8
Approach LOS D D F E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 28.7 21.1 25.0 14.7 35.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.3 14.7 * 21 21.3 29.7 30.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 24.8 6.1 17.6 10.9 11.6 32.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.3 1.5 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 76.0
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave After Interchange Opens PP (2036) 1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 23 474 450 457 111 108 32
v/c Ratio 0.51 0.13 1.14 0.48 0.98 0.25 0.35 0.09
Control Delay 58.9 43.0 127.2 34.0 79.4 5.8 43.7 0.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 58.9 43.0 127.2 34.0 79.4 5.8 43.7 0.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 52 15 ~389 135 321 0 67 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 102 39 #629 200 #564 35 127 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 256 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 50 50
Base Capacity (vph) 271 271 416 944 464 439 311 367
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.08 1.14 0.48 0.98 0.25 0.35 0.09 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave After Interchange Opens PP (2036) 1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 21 0 436 336 78 272 148 102 9 90 29 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 21 0 436 336 78 272 148 102 9 90 29 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1500 1085 0 1870 1693 1693 1781 1781 1485 1752 1752 1722 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 23 0 474 365 85 296 161 0 10 98 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 27 55 0 2 14 14 8 8 28 10 10 12
Cap, veh/h 94 145 0 426 796 183 313 170 31 299 276
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.24 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 1085 0 1781 2595 598 1118 608 1259 161 1582 1457 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 23 0 474 225 225 457 0 0 108 0 32 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1428 1085 0 1781 1608 1585 1726 0 1259 1744 0 1457 Q Serve(g_s), s 5.9 2.1 0.0 26.3 12.4 12.6 28.5 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.9 2.1 0.0 26.3 12.4 12.6 28.5 0.0 0.0 5.9 0.0 2.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.38 0.65 1.00 0.09 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 94 145 0 426 493 486 483 0 330 0 276 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.16 0.00 1.11 0.46 0.46 0.95 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 277 145 0 426 493 486 483 0 330 0 276 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.7 42.2 0.0 41.9 30.7 30.8 38.8 0.0 0.0 38.6 0.0 37.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 18.2 2.3 0.0 78.0 3.0 3.2 29.5 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.6 0.7 0.0 20.2 5.0 5.1 15.4 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 68.9 44.5 0.0 119.8 33.7 34.0 68.2 0.0 0.0 41.2 0.0 37.8 LnGrp LOS E D A F C C E A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 100 924 457 A 140
Approach Delay, s/veh 63.3 78.0 68.2 40.4
Approach LOS E E E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 20.0 25.0 11.0 39.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.3 14.7 * 21 21.3 29.7 30.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.3 4.1 7.9 7.9 14.6 30.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 2.1 0.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 71.1
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave After Interchange Opens PP (2036) 1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 28 220 217 256 220 132 52
v/c Ratio 0.45 0.11 0.74 0.27 0.53 0.42 0.41 0.16
Control Delay 55.0 40.0 57.3 30.2 38.2 16.9 43.8 1.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.0 40.0 57.3 30.2 38.2 16.9 43.8 1.0
Queue Length 50th (ft) 51 16 148 58 152 51 82 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 99 45 224 96 248 125 148 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 256 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 50 50
Base Capacity (vph) 338 342 414 794 482 528 324 327
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.08 0.53 0.27 0.53 0.42 0.41 0.16 Intersection Summary
US 101 SB at Terven Ave After Interchange Opens PP (2036) 1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 26 0 202 170 29 140 96 202 36 86 48 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 26 0 202 170 29 140 96 202 36 86 48 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1485 0 1796 1515 1515 1752 1752 1811 1767 1767 1352 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 28 0 220 185 32 152 104 0 39 93 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 28 0 7 26 26 10 10 6 9 9 37
Cap, veh/h 103 288 0 255 696 118 296 203 102 243 227
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.19 0.00 0.15 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1485 0 1711 2460 418 1010 691 1535 514 1227 1144 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 28 0 220 107 110 256 0 0 132 0 52 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1485 0 1711 1439 1439 1701 0 1535 1741 0 1144 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.5 1.6 0.0 13.2 6.0 6.2 13.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 4.0 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.5 1.6 0.0 13.2 6.0 6.2 13.1 0.0 0.0 6.9 0.0 4.0 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.29 0.59 1.00 0.30 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 103 288 0 255 407 407 499 0 345 0 227 V/C Ratio(X) 0.74 0.10 0.00 0.86 0.26 0.27 0.51 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.23 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 350 288 0 429 407 407 499 0 345 0 227 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.6 34.8 0.0 43.6 29.1 29.2 30.8 0.0 0.0 36.5 0.0 35.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 11.9 0.7 0.0 9.2 1.6 1.6 3.7 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 2.3 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 0.6 0.0 6.0 2.2 2.3 5.6 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 1.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 60.5 35.4 0.0 52.9 30.7 30.8 34.6 0.0 0.0 39.7 0.0 37.7 LnGrp LOS E D A D C C C A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 104 437 256 A 184
Approach Delay, s/veh 53.7 41.9 34.6 39.1
Approach LOS D D C D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.3 25.6 25.0 9.9 35.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.3 14.7 * 21 21.3 29.7 30.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.2 3.6 8.9 6.5 8.2 15.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 1.0 1.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Design Life PP (2045)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 76 23 0 464 360 84 291 158 108 10 96 31 Future Volume (veh/h) 76 23 0 464 360 84 291 158 108 10 96 31 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1500 1085 0 1870 1693 1693 1781 1781 1485 1752 1752 1722 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 83 25 0 504 391 91 316 172 0 11 104 34 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 27 55 0 2 14 14 8 8 28 10 10 12
Cap, veh/h 101 145 0 426 783 180 313 170 32 298 276
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.13 0.00 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.28 0.28 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 1085 0 1781 2595 598 1117 608 1259 167 1577 1457 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 83 25 0 504 241 241 488 0 0 115 0 34 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1428 1085 0 1781 1608 1585 1726 0 1259 1743 0 1457 Q Serve(g_s), s 6.3 2.2 0.0 26.3 13.5 13.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.3 2.2 0.0 26.3 13.5 13.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 2.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.38 0.65 1.00 0.10 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 101 145 0 426 485 478 483 0 330 0 276 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.17 0.00 1.18 0.50 0.50 1.01 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.12 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 277 145 0 426 485 478 483 0 330 0 276 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 50.4 42.3 0.0 41.9 31.5 31.6 39.6 0.0 0.0 38.7 0.0 37.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 17.2 2.6 0.0 104.1 3.6 3.8 43.5 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.8 0.7 0.0 23.3 5.5 5.6 18.2 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 67.6 44.8 0.0 146.0 35.1 35.4 83.1 0.0 0.0 41.6 0.0 37.9 LnGrp LOS E D A F D D F A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 108 986 488 A 149
Approach Delay, s/veh 62.3 91.9 83.1 40.8
Approach LOS E F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 30.0 20.0 25.0 11.5 38.5 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.3 14.7 * 21 21.3 29.7 30.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 28.3 4.2 8.3 8.3 15.8 32.8 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.2 2.2 0.0
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 83.1
HCM 6th LOS F
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Design Life PP (2045)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBL WBT NBT NBR SBT SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 30 261 232 269 236 151 55
v/c Ratio 0.47 0.12 0.80 0.29 0.56 0.45 0.47 0.17
Control Delay 55.5 41.4 60.0 30.9 39.4 18.4 45.5 1.1
Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 55.5 41.4 60.0 30.9 39.4 18.4 45.5 1.1
Queue Length 50th (ft) 55 18 176 63 162 60 96 0
Queue Length 95th (ft) 105 48 268 104 263 141 169 0
Internal Link Dist (ft) 256 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 150 120 50 50
Base Capacity (vph) 336 339 411 799 478 525 324 325
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.24 0.09 0.64 0.29 0.56 0.45 0.47 0.17 Intersection Summary
US 101 SB at Terven Ave Design Life PP (2045)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 28 0 240 182 31 148 99 217 38 101 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 28 0 240 182 31 148 99 217 38 101 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1485 0 1796 1515 1515 1752 1752 1811 1767 1767 1352 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 30 0 261 198 34 161 108 0 41 110 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 28 0 7 26 26 10 10 6 9 9 37
Cap, veh/h 106 254 0 295 696 117 298 200 94 251 226
Arrive On Green 0.06 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.29 0.00 0.20 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1485 0 1711 2463 416 1018 683 1535 473 1270 1144 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 30 0 261 114 118 269 0 0 151 0 55 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1485 0 1711 1439 1440 1701 0 1535 1743 0 1144 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 1.8 0.0 15.7 6.5 6.7 14.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 4.3 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 1.8 0.0 15.7 6.5 6.7 14.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 4.3 Prop In Lane 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.29 0.60 1.00 0.27 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 106 254 0 295 406 407 498 0 345 0 226 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.12 0.00 0.88 0.28 0.29 0.54 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.24 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 349 254 0 428 406 407 498 0 345 0 226 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.6 36.8 0.0 42.5 29.4 29.5 31.2 0.0 0.0 37.0 0.0 35.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.4 0.9 0.0 14.2 1.7 1.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 2.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 0.7 0.0 7.5 2.4 2.4 6.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 1.3 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 62.0 37.8 0.0 56.7 31.1 31.3 35.4 0.0 0.0 41.1 0.0 38.1 LnGrp LOS E D A E C C D A D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 112 493 269 A 206
Approach Delay, s/veh 55.5 44.7 35.4 40.3
Approach LOS E D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 4 5 6 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 21.8 23.3 25.0 10.2 35.0 35.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 4.2
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 26.3 14.7 * 21 21.3 29.7 30.8 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.7 3.8 10.0 6.9 8.7 16.0 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.2 1.1 1.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 42.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix D
Improved Traffic Signal Synchro Operational Analysis
US 101 SB at Terven Ave Opening Year PP (2025)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 80 27 375 525 620 222 229 109 28 239 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.08 0.33 0.85 0.93 0.94 0.91 0.20 0.27 0.72 Control Delay 69.8 25.1 15.0 49.2 48.7 86.1 77.4 2.3 46.0 44.2 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 69.8 25.1 15.0 49.2 48.7 86.1 77.4 2.3 46.0 44.2 Queue Length 50th (ft) 45 11 71 148 337 133 136 0 15 114 Queue Length 95th (ft) #116 32 106 #222 #566 #278 #278 15 42 #221 Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 285 135 30 125 200
Base Capacity (vph) 119 341 1149 658 670 235 251 538 107 331 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.08 0.33 0.80 0.93 0.94 0.91 0.20 0.26 0.72 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Opening Year PP (2025)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 74 25 345 483 511 60 283 132 100 26 143 77 Future Volume (veh/h) 74 25 345 483 511 60 283 132 100 26 143 77 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1500 1085 1589 1870 1693 1693 1752 1781 1485 1263 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 80 27 375 525 555 65 226 258 0 28 155 84 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 27 55 21 2 14 14 10 8 28 43 10 10
Cap, veh/h 97 306 1029 600 576 67 254 560 47 205 111
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.28 0.28 0.17 0.39 0.39 0.15 0.31 0.00 0.04 0.19 0.19 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 1085 2370 3456 1487 174 1668 1781 1259 1203 1069 579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 80 27 375 525 0 620 226 258 0 28 0 239 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1428 1085 1185 1728 0 1661 1668 1781 1259 1203 0 1648 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 1.6 9.4 13.1 0.0 32.3 11.8 10.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 12.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 1.6 9.4 13.1 0.0 32.3 11.8 10.3 0.0 2.0 0.0 12.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 97 306 1029 600 0 644 254 560 47 0 316 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.09 0.36 0.87 0.00 0.96 0.89 0.46 0.59 0.00 0.76 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 121 306 1029 668 0 644 254 560 103 0 316 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 40.7 23.4 16.8 35.6 0.0 26.5 36.8 24.3 0.0 41.8 0.0 33.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 24.8 0.6 1.0 10.7 0.0 27.5 29.3 2.7 0.0 4.3 0.0 15.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.5 2.4 6.1 0.0 16.3 6.6 4.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 6.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 65.5 24.0 17.8 46.3 0.0 54.0 66.1 27.1 0.0 46.1 0.0 49.2 LnGrp LOS E C B D A D E C D A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 482 1145 484 A 267
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.1 50.5 45.3 48.9
Approach LOS C D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.1 30.2 18.0 21.2 9.7 39.6 7.2 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.7 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 17.1 24.7 13.5 * 17 7.5 34.3 7.6 * 24 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.1 11.4 13.8 14.1 6.9 34.3 4.0 12.3 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 44.3
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Opening Year PP (2025)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 133 58 1013 276 286 247 259 286 74 265 v/c Ratio 0.69 0.10 0.59 0.93 0.52 0.85 0.84 0.44 0.56 0.99 Control Delay 64.2 22.0 13.6 87.1 31.5 68.9 66.8 6.2 63.9 95.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 64.2 22.0 13.6 87.1 31.5 68.9 66.8 6.2 63.9 95.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 91 26 218 101 154 176 185 0 51 174 Queue Length 95th (ft) 152 54 282 #183 254 #315 #323 66 99 #347 Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 285 135 30 125 200
Base Capacity (vph) 256 584 1749 297 554 307 308 648 163 267 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.52 0.10 0.58 0.93 0.52 0.80 0.84 0.44 0.45 0.99 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Opening Year PP (2025)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 122 53 932 254 233 30 284 181 263 68 154 90 Future Volume (veh/h) 122 53 932 254 233 30 284 181 263 68 154 90 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1485 1841 1796 1515 1515 1752 1752 1811 1618 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 133 58 1013 276 253 33 253 275 0 74 167 98 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 28 4 7 26 26 10 10 6 19 9 9
Cap, veh/h 161 598 1571 308 528 69 283 503 91 176 103
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.09 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.29 0.00 0.06 0.17 0.17 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1485 2745 3319 1313 171 1668 1752 1535 1541 1044 613 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 133 58 1013 276 0 286 253 275 0 74 0 265 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1485 1373 1659 0 1484 1668 1752 1535 1541 0 1656 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.1 2.6 26.7 8.8 0.0 15.2 15.8 14.2 0.0 5.1 0.0 16.9 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.1 2.6 26.7 8.8 0.0 15.2 15.8 14.2 0.0 5.1 0.0 16.9 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 161 598 1571 308 0 597 283 503 91 0 280 V/C Ratio(X) 0.82 0.10 0.64 0.90 0.00 0.48 0.89 0.55 0.81 0.00 0.95 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 265 598 1571 308 0 597 337 503 169 0 280 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 47.4 19.8 15.5 47.8 0.0 23.6 43.3 32.1 0.0 49.6 0.0 43.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 4.1 0.3 2.1 25.9 0.0 2.7 22.4 4.2 0.0 6.4 0.0 41.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.7 1.0 7.8 4.6 0.0 5.5 8.0 6.3 0.0 2.1 0.0 10.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 51.6 20.1 17.5 73.8 0.0 26.3 65.7 36.4 0.0 56.0 0.0 85.6 LnGrp LOS D C B E A C E D E A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 1204 562 528 A 339
Approach Delay, s/veh 21.4 49.6 50.5 79.1
Approach LOS C D D E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 13.6 48.2 22.6 22.2 13.7 48.1 10.0 34.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.7 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 9.9 42.9 21.5 * 18 16.4 36.4 11.7 * 29 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.8 28.7 17.8 18.9 10.1 17.2 7.1 16.2 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 2.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 40.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Service Life PP (2035)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 87 29 403 607 670 239 247 182 30 256 v/c Ratio 0.82 0.07 0.33 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.89 0.36 0.38 0.94 Control Delay 103.0 31.7 17.6 56.3 46.0 87.6 81.7 7.4 67.1 88.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 103.0 31.7 17.6 56.3 46.0 87.6 81.7 7.4 67.1 88.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 67 16 97 233 467 192 197 1 23 185 Queue Length 95th (ft) #159 42 147 287 #709 #350 #353 59 55 #351 Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 285 135 30 125 200
Base Capacity (vph) 111 387 1251 862 751 268 276 508 89 272 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.78 0.07 0.32 0.70 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.36 0.34 0.94 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Service Life PP (2035)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 80 27 371 558 551 65 305 142 167 28 153 83 Future Volume (veh/h) 80 27 371 558 551 65 305 142 167 28 153 83 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1500 1085 1589 1870 1693 1693 1752 1781 1485 1263 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 87 29 403 607 599 71 243 279 0 30 166 90 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 27 55 21 2 14 14 10 8 28 43 10 10
Cap, veh/h 104 362 1172 676 677 80 269 517 45 171 93
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.20 0.46 0.46 0.16 0.29 0.00 0.04 0.16 0.16 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 1085 2370 3456 1485 176 1668 1781 1259 1203 1068 579 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 87 29 403 607 0 670 243 279 0 30 0 256 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1428 1085 1185 1728 0 1661 1668 1781 1259 1203 0 1648 Q Serve(g_s), s 7.1 2.2 12.2 20.2 0.0 43.3 16.8 15.5 0.0 2.9 0.0 18.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.1 2.2 12.2 20.2 0.0 43.3 16.8 15.5 0.0 2.9 0.0 18.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 104 362 1172 676 0 758 269 517 45 0 263 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.08 0.34 0.90 0.00 0.88 0.90 0.54 0.67 0.00 0.97 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 113 362 1172 878 0 758 291 517 86 0 263 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 53.9 26.9 18.1 46.2 0.0 29.2 48.5 35.1 0.0 56.0 0.0 49.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 35.1 0.4 0.8 8.6 0.0 14.2 28.4 4.0 0.0 6.3 0.0 48.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.6 0.6 3.3 9.2 0.0 19.0 8.9 7.1 0.0 1.0 0.0 11.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 89.0 27.3 18.9 54.8 0.0 43.4 76.9 39.1 0.0 62.3 0.0 98.1 LnGrp LOS F C B D A D E D E A F
Approach Vol, veh/h 519 1277 522 A 286
Approach Delay, s/veh 31.1 48.8 56.7 94.4
Approach LOS C D E F
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 26.7 44.5 23.4 23.0 12.3 59.0 8.1 38.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.7 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 29.9 33.1 20.5 * 19 9.3 53.7 8.4 * 32 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 22.2 14.2 18.8 20.2 9.1 45.3 4.9 17.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.8 1.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.9
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Service Life PP (2035)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 142 62 1091 362 308 266 278 351 79 285 v/c Ratio 0.76 0.17 0.78 0.76 0.74 0.78 0.77 0.43 0.58 0.76 Control Delay 76.2 38.7 28.2 58.6 50.3 58.3 57.0 4.5 68.0 53.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 76.2 38.7 28.2 58.6 50.3 58.3 57.0 4.5 68.0 53.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 105 37 362 138 213 197 206 0 59 190 Queue Length 95th (ft) #198 80 488 188 #354 302 310 62 110 #334 Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 285 135 30 125 200
Base Capacity (vph) 213 360 1499 589 417 404 360 813 182 373 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.67 0.17 0.73 0.61 0.74 0.66 0.77 0.43 0.43 0.76 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Service Life PP (2035)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 131 57 1004 333 251 32 306 194 323 73 166 97 Future Volume (veh/h) 131 57 1004 333 251 32 306 194 323 73 166 97 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1485 1841 1796 1515 1515 1752 1752 1811 1618 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 142 62 1091 362 273 35 272 296 0 79 180 105 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 28 4 7 26 26 10 10 6 19 9 9
Cap, veh/h 170 384 1211 427 380 49 304 693 97 281 164
Arrive On Green 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.13 0.29 0.29 0.18 0.40 0.00 0.06 0.27 0.27 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1485 2745 3319 1316 169 1668 1752 1535 1541 1046 610 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 142 62 1091 362 0 308 272 296 0 79 0 285 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1485 1373 1659 0 1484 1668 1752 1535 1541 0 1657 Q Serve(g_s), s 8.9 3.5 28.4 11.7 0.0 20.4 17.5 13.5 0.0 5.6 0.0 16.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.9 3.5 28.4 11.7 0.0 20.4 17.5 13.5 0.0 5.6 0.0 16.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 170 384 1211 427 0 429 304 693 97 0 445 V/C Ratio(X) 0.84 0.16 0.90 0.85 0.00 0.72 0.89 0.43 0.81 0.00 0.64 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 225 384 1211 620 0 429 449 693 192 0 445 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 48.6 31.5 28.4 46.7 0.0 35.0 43.8 24.1 0.0 50.8 0.0 35.4 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 14.6 0.9 10.9 5.1 0.0 9.9 14.6 1.9 0.0 6.1 0.0 6.9 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.5 1.4 14.0 5.0 0.0 8.2 8.2 5.7 0.0 2.3 0.0 7.6 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.2 32.4 39.3 51.9 0.0 44.9 58.4 26.0 0.0 56.8 0.0 42.3 LnGrp LOS E C D D A D E C E A D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1295 670 568 A 364
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.6 48.7 41.5 45.4
Approach LOS D D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.8 33.7 24.5 33.7 14.5 37.0 10.6 47.6 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.7 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.5 25.5 29.5 * 27 14.3 31.7 13.7 * 43 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.7 30.4 19.5 18.7 10.9 22.4 7.6 15.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.9 0.0 1.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 43.7
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave After Interchange Opens PP (2036) 1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 23 297 474 450 225 232 111 10 130 v/c Ratio 0.59 0.08 0.27 0.75 0.76 0.80 0.77 0.18 0.10 0.38 Control Delay 59.2 29.3 14.8 41.9 36.0 55.6 51.5 2.0 41.0 31.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.2 29.3 14.8 41.9 36.0 55.6 51.5 2.0 41.0 31.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 10 53 132 227 127 130 0 5 57
Queue Length 95th (ft) #102 32 88 179 #389 #240 #236 15 22 111 Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 285 135 30 125 200
Base Capacity (vph) 137 283 1168 770 589 318 303 611 103 340 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.08 0.25 0.62 0.76 0.71 0.77 0.18 0.10 0.38 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave After Interchange Opens PP (2036) 1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 21 273 436 336 78 272 148 102 9 90 29 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 21 273 436 336 78 272 148 102 9 90 29 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1500 1085 1589 1870 1693 1693 1752 1781 1485 1263 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 23 297 474 365 85 228 255 0 10 98 32 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 27 55 21 2 14 14 10 8 28 43 10 10
Cap, veh/h 100 282 993 565 469 109 266 634 21 258 84
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.16 0.35 0.35 0.16 0.36 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 1085 2370 3456 1328 309 1668 1781 1259 1203 1265 413 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 23 297 474 0 450 228 255 0 10 0 130 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1428 1085 1185 1728 0 1637 1668 1781 1259 1203 0 1677 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.4 1.3 6.9 11.1 0.0 20.4 11.1 8.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 5.6 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.4 1.3 6.9 11.1 0.0 20.4 11.1 8.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 5.6 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 282 993 565 0 579 266 634 21 0 343 V/C Ratio(X) 0.77 0.08 0.30 0.84 0.00 0.78 0.86 0.40 0.48 0.00 0.38 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 143 282 993 802 0 579 353 634 101 0 343 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 38.0 23.3 16.0 33.7 0.0 24.0 34.0 20.1 0.0 40.5 0.0 28.5 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.6 0.6 0.8 3.9 0.0 9.9 14.7 1.9 0.0 6.2 0.0 3.2 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 0.4 1.8 4.6 0.0 8.7 5.3 3.7 0.0 0.2 0.0 2.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 46.6 23.8 16.8 37.6 0.0 33.9 48.8 22.0 0.0 46.7 0.0 31.7 LnGrp LOS D C B D A C D C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 397 924 483 A 140
Approach Delay, s/veh 23.0 35.8 34.7 32.8
Approach LOS C D C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 17.3 26.9 17.8 21.2 9.5 34.7 5.1 33.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.7 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 19.3 18.4 17.6 * 17 8.3 29.4 7.0 * 28 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.1 8.9 13.1 7.6 6.4 22.4 2.7 10.9 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 32.7
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave After Interchange Opens PP (2036) 1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 76 28 635 220 217 126 130 220 39 145 v/c Ratio 0.45 0.06 0.45 0.58 0.41 0.56 0.54 0.33 0.30 0.41 Control Delay 46.0 23.5 14.3 42.3 25.1 43.9 42.3 4.9 45.1 28.0 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 46.0 23.5 14.3 42.3 25.1 43.9 42.3 4.9 45.1 28.0 Queue Length 50th (ft) 41 11 122 60 91 68 70 0 21 54
Queue Length 95th (ft) 84 32 165 96 163 125 127 50 53 117 Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 285 135 30 125 200
Base Capacity (vph) 208 456 1548 478 528 305 240 670 131 355 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.37 0.06 0.41 0.46 0.41 0.41 0.54 0.33 0.30 0.41 Intersection Summary
US 101 SB at Terven Ave After Interchange Opens PP (2036) 1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 26 584 202 170 29 140 96 202 36 86 48 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 26 584 202 170 29 140 96 202 36 86 48 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1485 1841 1796 1515 1515 1752 1752 1811 1618 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 76 28 635 220 185 32 128 138 0 39 93 52 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 28 4 7 26 26 10 10 6 19 9 9
Cap, veh/h 121 470 1132 300 423 73 160 592 77 300 168
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.34 0.00 0.05 0.28 0.28 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1485 2745 3319 1258 218 1668 1752 1535 1541 1064 595 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 76 28 635 220 0 217 128 138 0 39 0 145 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1485 1373 1659 0 1476 1668 1752 1535 1541 0 1659 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 1.1 14.6 5.3 0.0 9.4 6.2 4.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 1.1 14.6 5.3 0.0 9.4 6.2 4.7 0.0 2.0 0.0 5.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 121 470 1132 300 0 497 160 592 77 0 468 V/C Ratio(X) 0.63 0.06 0.56 0.73 0.00 0.44 0.80 0.23 0.50 0.00 0.31 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 216 470 1132 496 0 497 334 592 137 0 468 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 37.2 19.6 18.5 36.5 0.0 21.2 36.4 19.6 0.0 38.1 0.0 23.2 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.0 0.2 2.0 1.3 0.0 2.8 8.8 0.9 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.7 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.5 0.4 4.4 2.1 0.0 3.3 2.8 1.9 0.0 0.8 0.0 2.4 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 39.2 19.8 20.5 37.8 0.0 24.0 45.2 20.5 0.0 40.0 0.0 24.9 LnGrp LOS D B C D A C D C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 739 437 266 A 184
Approach Delay, s/veh 22.4 30.9 32.4 28.1
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.1 31.3 12.4 27.4 9.5 33.0 7.8 32.0 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.7 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 12.3 25.7 16.5 * 18 10.3 27.7 7.3 * 28 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.3 16.6 8.2 7.7 5.5 11.4 4.0 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.4 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 27.0
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Design Life PP (2045)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 83 25 317 504 482 240 248 117 11 138 v/c Ratio 0.68 0.09 0.29 0.77 0.79 0.86 0.83 0.19 0.11 0.41 Control Delay 68.4 29.3 15.5 42.1 36.6 64.9 59.3 2.4 41.3 32.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 68.4 29.3 15.5 42.1 36.6 64.9 59.3 2.4 41.3 32.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 47 11 59 140 242 140 143 0 6 61
Queue Length 95th (ft) #119 33 96 188 #413 #274 #274 18 23 117 Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 285 135 30 125 200
Base Capacity (vph) 125 284 1131 795 610 294 298 604 101 335 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.66 0.09 0.28 0.63 0.79 0.82 0.83 0.19 0.11 0.41 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Design Life PP (2045)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsAM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 76 23 292 464 360 84 291 158 108 10 96 31 Future Volume (veh/h) 76 23 292 464 360 84 291 158 108 10 96 31 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1500 1085 1589 1870 1693 1693 1752 1781 1485 1263 1752 1752 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 83 25 317 504 391 91 244 273 0 11 104 34 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 27 55 21 2 14 14 10 8 28 43 10 10
Cap, veh/h 100 281 1010 592 479 111 279 632 23 249 81
Arrive On Green 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.17 0.36 0.36 0.17 0.35 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.20 Sat Flow, veh/h 1428 1085 2370 3456 1328 309 1668 1781 1259 1203 1264 413 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 83 25 317 504 0 482 244 273 0 11 0 138 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1428 1085 1185 1728 0 1637 1668 1781 1259 1203 0 1677 Q Serve(g_s), s 4.9 1.5 7.6 12.2 0.0 23.0 12.3 10.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 6.2 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.9 1.5 7.6 12.2 0.0 23.0 12.3 10.1 0.0 0.8 0.0 6.2 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 100 281 1010 592 0 590 279 632 23 0 331 V/C Ratio(X) 0.83 0.09 0.31 0.85 0.00 0.82 0.88 0.43 0.49 0.00 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 128 281 1010 809 0 590 319 632 98 0 331 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 39.6 24.2 16.4 34.7 0.0 25.0 35.0 21.2 0.0 41.9 0.0 30.3 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 23.9 0.6 0.8 4.9 0.0 11.9 20.8 2.1 0.0 5.9 0.0 3.8 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.4 0.4 2.0 5.2 0.0 10.0 6.3 4.2 0.0 0.3 0.0 2.8 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 63.5 24.9 17.2 39.6 0.0 36.9 55.9 23.4 0.0 47.8 0.0 34.1 LnGrp LOS E C B D A D E C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 425 986 517 A 149
Approach Delay, s/veh 26.7 38.3 38.7 35.2
Approach LOS C D D D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.5 27.7 18.9 21.2 9.7 36.4 5.3 34.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.7 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 20.2 18.6 16.5 * 17 7.7 31.1 7.0 * 27 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.2 9.6 14.3 8.2 6.9 25.0 2.8 12.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.7 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 35.8
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Design Life PP (2045)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
Queues Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 82 30 684 261 232 132 137 236 41 165 v/c Ratio 0.49 0.06 0.79 0.82 0.45 0.70 0.67 0.36 0.29 0.44 Control Delay 42.5 18.6 31.8 55.0 22.8 52.9 49.3 5.1 37.4 24.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 42.5 18.6 31.8 55.0 22.8 52.9 49.3 5.1 37.4 24.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 37 10 163 62 82 63 65 0 18 53
Queue Length 95th (ft) 79 28 #255 #123 148 #143 #142 50 48 109 Internal Link Dist (ft) 526 427 121 526
Turn Bay Length (ft) 175 285 135 30 125 200
Base Capacity (vph) 173 467 861 320 517 198 203 653 142 371 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.47 0.06 0.79 0.82 0.45 0.67 0.67 0.36 0.29 0.44 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

US 101 SB at Terven Ave Design Life PP (2045)
1: Terven Ave/Terven Avenue & Airport Boulevard/US 101 SB RampsPM Peak Kimley-Horn Synchro 10 Report
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Page 2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 28 629 240 182 31 148 99 217 38 101 51 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 28 629 240 182 31 148 99 217 38 101 51 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1811 1485 1841 1796 1515 1515 1752 1752 1811 1618 1767 1767 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 82 30 684 261 198 34 134 145 0 41 110 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 Percent Heavy Veh, % 6 28 4 7 26 26 10 10 6 19 9 9
Cap, veh/h 134 480 887 333 435 75 166 508 84 260 130
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.32 0.32 0.10 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.29 0.00 0.05 0.23 0.23 Sat Flow, veh/h 1725 1485 2745 3319 1259 216 1668 1752 1535 1541 1111 556 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 82 30 684 261 0 232 134 145 0 41 0 165 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1725 1485 1373 1659 0 1476 1668 1752 1535 1541 0 1667 Q Serve(g_s), s 3.3 1.0 16.3 5.6 0.0 8.9 5.7 4.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 6.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.3 1.0 16.3 5.6 0.0 8.9 5.7 4.7 0.0 1.9 0.0 6.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.33
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 134 480 887 333 0 510 166 508 84 0 389 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.06 0.77 0.78 0.00 0.46 0.81 0.29 0.49 0.00 0.42 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 180 480 887 333 0 510 218 508 148 0 389 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5 17.0 22.2 32.0 0.0 18.5 32.1 20.0 0.0 33.4 0.0 23.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.7 0.3 6.4 10.6 0.0 2.9 15.2 1.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 3.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.4 0.4 5.4 2.6 0.0 3.1 2.8 1.9 0.0 0.7 0.0 2.7 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 34.1 17.3 28.6 42.6 0.0 21.4 47.2 21.4 0.0 35.1 0.0 27.1 LnGrp LOS C B C D A C D C D A C
Approach Vol, veh/h 796 493 279 A 206
Approach Delay, s/veh 28.8 32.6 33.8 28.7
Approach LOS C C C C
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 11.0 28.8 11.8 21.2 9.4 30.4 7.6 25.3 Change Period (Y+Rc), s 3.7 5.3 4.5 * 4.2 3.7 5.3 3.7 * 4.2 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 7.3 23.5 9.5 * 17 7.6 23.2 7.0 * 20 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.6 18.3 7.7 8.1 5.3 10.9 3.9 6.7 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.0 1.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 30.6
HCM 6th LOS C
Notes
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement. * HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Unsignalized Delay for [NBR] is excluded from calculations of the approach delay and intersection delay.

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix E
Roundabout SIDRA Operational Analysis

SITE LAYOUT
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2025AM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd_DL (Site Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Layout pictures are schematic functional drawings reflecting input data. They are not design drawings.

SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0| Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd| sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC| Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise| Created: Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:07:37 PM Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\City of Salinas, ICE -SB 101 Ramps at Terven Ave\03 Analysis Files\SidraFiles\SB101 at Terven_RAB.sip9

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2025AM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUECap. Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 451 9.4 1098 0.411 100 7.6 LOS A 2.1 55.9 Full 820 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 109 28.0 1029 0.106 100 4.4 LOS A 0.3 10.4 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 560 13.0 0.411 7.0 LOS A 2.1 55.9
East: WB US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Lane 1d 597 3.5 840 0.711 100 17.7 LOS C 7.9 202.2 Full 615 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 548 12.6 771 0.711 100 18.9 LOS C 7.2 197.8 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 1146 7.8 0.711 18.3 LOS C 7.9 202.2
North: SB Terven Ave
Lane 1d 267 14.1 358 0.748 100 38.4 LOS E 4.2 115.9 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 267 14.1 0.748 38.4 LOS E 4.2 115.9
West: EB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 108 34.1 537 0.200 100 9.4 LOS A 0.6 18.2 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 375 21.0 1384 0.271 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Approach 483 23.9 0.271 2.2 LOS A 0.6 18.2
Intersection2455 12.8 0.748 14.7 LOS B 7.9 202.2
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Sitetab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2025PM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUECap. Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 505 10.0 980 0.515 100 10.1 LOS B 3.1 84.8 Full 820 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 286 6.0 1156 0.247 100 5.4 LOS A 1.1 29.0 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 791 8.6 0.515 8.4 LOS A 3.1 84.8
East: WB US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Lane 1d 302 8.6 724 0.417 100 10.6 LOS B 2.0 53.9 Full 615 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 260 25.6 625 0.417 100 11.9 LOS B 1.7 51.7 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 562 16.5 0.417 11.2 LOS B 2.0 53.9
North: SB Terven Ave
Lane 1d 339 19.3 542 0.625 100 20.2 LOS C 3.6 103.9 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 339 19.3 0.625 20.2 LOS C 3.6 103.9
West: EB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 190 12.7 753 0.253 100 7.7 LOS A 0.9 25.7 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 1013 4.0 1610 0.629 100 0.3 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Approach 1203 5.4 0.629 1.5 LOS A 0.9 25.7
Intersection2896 10.0 0.629 7.3 LOS A 3.6 103.9
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Sitetab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2035AM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUECap. Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 486 9.4 1083 0.449 100 8.2 LOS A 2.4 63.2 Full 820 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 182 28.0 1023 0.177 100 5.2 LOS A 0.6 18.6 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 667 14.4 0.449 7.4 LOS A 2.4 63.2
East: WB US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Lane 1d 667 3.1 810 0.823 100 25.6 LOS D 12.4 316.7 Full 615 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 609 12.6 741 0.823 100 27.4 LOS D 11.3 310.5 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 1276 7.6 0.823 26.5 LOS D 12.4 316.7
North: SB Terven Ave
Lane 1d 287 14.1 313 0.917 100 68.9 LOS F 7.5 207.8 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 287 14.1 0.917 68.9 LOS F 7.5 207.8
West: EB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 116 34.1 491 0.237 100 10.8 LOS B 0.7 21.4 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 403 21.0 1384 0.291 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Approach 520 23.9 0.291 2.5 LOS A 0.7 21.4
Intersection2750 13.0 0.917 21.7 LOS C 12.4 316.7
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Sitetab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2035PM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUECap. Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 543 10.0 961 0.566 100 11.3 LOS B 4.5 121.9 Full 820 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 351 6.0 1144 0.307 100 6.1 LOS A 1.5 38.1 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 895 8.4 0.566 9.3 LOS A 4.5 121.9
East: WB US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Lane 1d 362 7.0 700 0.517 100 13.1 LOS B 3.1 81.5 Full 615 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 308 25.7 596 0.516 1005 14.9 LOS B 2.6 78.4 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 670 15.6 0.517 14.0 LOS B 3.1 81.5
North: SB Terven Ave
Lane 1d 365 19.3 480 0.761 100 31.4 LOS D 5.3 154.2 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 365 19.3 0.761 31.4 LOS D 5.3 154.2
West: EB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 204 12.7 680 0.301 100 9.1 LOS A 1.1 30.6 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 1091 4.0 1610 0.678 100 0.4 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Approach 1296 5.4 0.678 1.7 LOS A 1.1 30.6
Intersection3225 9.9 0.761 9.6 LOS A 5.3 154.2
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Sitetab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. 5 Lane under-utilisation found by the program
d Dominant lane on roundabout approach
SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0| Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd| sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC| Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise| Processed: Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:57:24 PM Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\City of Salinas, ICE -SB 101 Ramps at Terven Ave\03 Analysis Files\SidraFiles\SB101 at Terven_RAB.sip9

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2036AM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUECap. Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 457 9.3 1136 0.402 100 7.3 LOS A 2.1 55.2 Full 820 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 111 28.0 1061 0.105 100 4.3 LOS A 0.3 10.4 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 567 13.0 0.402 6.7 LOS A 2.1 55.2
East: WB US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Lane 1d 483 2.2 851 0.567 100 12.5 LOS B 4.3 110.1 Full 615 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 441 11.7 778 0.567 100 13.4 LOS B 3.9 107.2 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 924 6.7 0.567 12.9 LOS B 4.3 110.1
North: SB Terven Ave
Lane 1d 139 12.8 460 0.303 100 12.7 LOS B 1.0 27.8 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 139 12.8 0.303 12.7 LOS B 1.0 27.8
West: EB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 100 33.4 614 0.163 100 7.8 LOS A 0.5 15.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 297 21.0 1384 0.214 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Approach 397 24.1 0.214 2.0 LOS A 0.5 15.0
Intersection2027 12.3 0.567 9.0 LOS A 4.3 110.1
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Sitetab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2036PM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUECap. Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 257 10.0 1113 0.231 100 5.4 LOS A 1.0 26.2 Full 820 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 220 6.0 1242 0.177 100 4.4 LOS A 0.8 19.7 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 476 8.2 0.231 4.9 LOS A 1.0 26.2
East: WB US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Lane 1d 235 8.2 981 0.239 100 6.0 LOS A 0.9 24.6 Full 615 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 201 25.5 841 0.239 100 6.8 LOS A 0.8 23.1 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 436 16.2 0.239 6.3 LOS A 0.9 24.6
North: SB Terven Ave
Lane 1d 185 19.0 709 0.261 100 8.1 LOS A 0.8 24.2 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 185 19.0 0.261 8.1 LOS A 0.8 24.2
West: EB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 104 12.0 895 0.117 100 5.1 LOS A 0.4 11.4 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 635 4.0 1610 0.394 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Approach 739 5.1 0.394 0.8 LOS A 0.4 11.4
Intersection1836 9.9 0.394 3.9 LOS A 1.0 26.2
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Sitetab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2044AM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUECap. Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 488 9.3 1124 0.434 100 7.8 LOS A 2.3 61.6 Full 820 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 117 28.0 1056 0.111 100 4.4 LOS A 0.4 11.1 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 605 12.9 0.434 7.1 LOS A 2.3 61.6
East: WB US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Lane 1d 515 2.3 821 0.628 100 14.6 LOS B 5.4 137.5 Full 615 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 472 11.7 751 0.628 100 15.7 LOS C 4.9 134.1 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 987 6.8 0.628 15.1 LOS C 5.4 137.5
North: SB Terven Ave
Lane 1d 149 12.9 429 0.347 100 14.6 LOS B 1.2 33.4 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 149 12.9 0.347 14.6 LOS B 1.2 33.4
West: EB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 108 33.5 592 0.182 100 8.3 LOS A 0.5 16.7 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 317 21.0 1384 0.229 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Approach 425 24.2 0.229 2.2 LOS A 0.5 16.7
Intersection2166 12.3 0.628 10.3 LOS B 5.4 137.5
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Sitetab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

LANE SUMMARY
Site: 101 [Alt01a_2044PM_US101 SB @ Airport Blvd (Site
Folder: General)]
New Site
Site Category: (None)
Roundabout
Lane Use and Performance
DEMAND
FLOWS
95% BACK OF
QUEUECap. Deg.

Satn
Lane
Util.

Aver.

Delay
Level of
Service
Lane
Config
Lane
Length
Cap.

Adj.

Prob.

Block.
[ Total HV ] [ Veh Dist ]
veh/h % veh/h v/c % sec ft ft % %
South: NB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 268 10.0 1101 0.244 100 5.5 LOS A 1.0 27.9 Full 820 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 236 6.0 1236 0.191 100 4.6 LOS A 0.8 21.6 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 504 8.1 0.244 5.1 LOS A 1.0 27.9
East: WB US 101 SB Off-Ramp
Lane 1d 266 7.3 970 0.274 100 6.4 LOS A 1.1 28.8 Full 615 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 227 25.6 828 0.274 100 7.3 LOS A 0.9 27.1 Short 200 0.0 NA Approach 492 15.7 0.274 6.8 LOS A 1.1 28.8
North: SB Terven Ave
Lane 1d 207 18.5 671 0.308 100 9.2 LOS A 1.0 29.0 Full 1600 0.0 0.0 Approach 207 18.5 0.308 9.2 LOS A 1.0 29.0
West: EB Airport Blvd
Lane 1d 112 12.0 844 0.133 100 5.6 LOS A 0.5 12.9 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Lane 2 684 4.0 1610 0.425 100 0.1 LOS A 0.0 0.0 Full 1200 0.0 0.0 Approach 796 5.1 0.425 0.9 LOS A 0.5 12.9
Intersection1999 9.9 0.425 4.2 LOS A 1.1 29.0
Site Level of Service (LOS) Method: Delay & v/c (HCM 6). Site LOS Method is specified in the Parameter Settings dialog (Sitetab).

Roundabout LOS Method: Same as Sign Control.

Lane LOS values are based on average delay and v/c ratio (degree of saturation) per lane.

LOS F will result if v/c > 1 irrespective of lane delay value (does not apply for approaches and intersection).

Intersection and Approach LOS values are based on average delay for all lanes (v/c not used as specified in HCM 6).

Roundabout Capacity Model: US HCM 6.

Delay Model: HCM Delay Formula (Geometric Delay is not included).

Queue Model: HCM Queue Formula.

Gap-Acceptance Capacity: Traditional M1.

HV (%) values are calculated for All Movement Classes of All Heavy Vehicle Model Designation. d Dominant lane on roundabout approach
SIDRA INTERSECTION 9.0| Copyright © 2000-2020 Akcelik and Associates Pty Ltd| sidrasolutions.com Organisation: KIMLEY-HORN & ASSOCIATES INC| Licence: NETWORK / Enterprise| Processed: Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:57:28 PM Project: K:\SAC_TPTO\City of Salinas, ICE -SB 101 Ramps at Terven Ave\03 Analysis Files\SidraFiles\SB101 at Terven_RAB.sip9 ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix F
Preliminary Concept Layouts for Improved Traffic Signal and Roundabout 1/29/2021
EXHIBIT 1
1" : 60'
SCALE
Concept Layout of Improved Traffic Signal
US 101 SB Ramps at Terven Avenue/Airport Boulevard Concepts Airport Blvd
Airport Blvd
T
e
rv
e
n
A
v
e
US 101 On-Ramp
US 101 Off-Ramp
1" : 60'
SCALE
Airport Blvd
Airport Blvd
T
e
rv
e
n
A
v
e
US 101 On-Ramp
US 101 Off-Ramp
1/29/2021
EXHIBIT 2
Concept Layout of Proposed Roundabout
US 101 SB Ramps at Terven Avenue/Airport Boulevard Concepts ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix G
Description of Benefit Cost Performance Measures and Caltrans Cal B/C 2020 Value Comparison Table
ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021

BACKGROUND ON BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS
The ICE Analysis is based on the results of a B/C analysis, which is an objective, data-driven calculation that helps inform investment decisions when stakeholders are evaluating intersection control improvements.

The calculations identify cost effective improvements considering the full lifecycle of the improvement, typically 20 years.

Five performance metrics are typically evaluated for proposed conceptual control types at each study location to determine the B/C ratio. The metrics include:
· Safety – measuring the societal cost associated with the predicted number and severity of collisions.
· Delay – measuring the societal cost associated with the number of person-hours of delay. · Emissions – measuring the societal cost associated with the exposure to health-based pollutants emitted by motor vehicles.
· Operations and Maintenance – measuring common annualized costs associated with operating and maintaining the intersection control.
· Initial Capital Costs – measuring the capital costs needed to plan, design, and construct the intersection improvement. The capital costs include construction, capital support, and right of way.

Benefit Performance Measures
The following performance measures are used to calculate the benefit, or cost savings, of the proposed intersection control improvement compared to the existing condition. For each performance measure, the proposed improvement provides a benefit if the calculated life-cycle cost of the proposed improvement is less than the life-cycle cost of the existing condition. The magnitude of the benefit is the difference between the life-cycle cost of the existing condition less the life-cycle cost of the proposed improvement.

Safety
Safety measures the societal cost associated with the predicted number and severity of collisions that may occur for the existing and each proposed intersection control type. The number of predicted collisions was calculated using Highway Safety Manual predictive methods and crash modification factors (CMF). Since CMFs and S afety P e rform an ce F unction s (SP F) are sta tistical m odels bas ed on histori cal c ras h dat a, the safety cost is only a prediction of crash severity distribution and does not perfectly represent the future crash data.

Delay
Delay measures the societal cost associated with the number of person-hours of delay at the intersection during the study period. Consistent with the Caltrans Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters 2020, vehicle occupancy of 1.15 is used to convert delay to person-hours of delay at a value of $19.70 per vehicle-hour of delay, which is the weighted-average of automobile and truck.

Emissions
The emissions performance measure calculates the societal cost associated with exposure to health-based pollutants emitted by motor vehicles. Pollutant emissions are running emissions based on the average speed of vehicles traveling through the intersection during the study period. Pollutant emissions evaluated include reactive organic gasses (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and particulate matter (PM10). The societal cost of emissions is calculated using emission data from the California Air Resource Board (CARB) Methods t o F i n d t h e C o s t - E f f e c t i v e n e s s o f F u n d i n g A i r Q u a l i t y P r o j e c t s , T a b l e 4 E m i s s i o n F a c t o r s b y S p e e d , ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
September 2019 and cost per ton data from Caltrans Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters 2020 for emissions (Note: VOC is assumed to be synonymous with ROG).

Cost Performance Measures
The following performance measures are used to calculate the added cost of the proposed intersection control improvements compared to the existing control. For each performance measure, the proposed i m p r o v e m e n t s a d d t o t h e c o s t o f t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n i f t h e c a l c u l a t e d l i f e - c y c l e c o s t o f t h e p r o p o s e d im provem ent is gr eater th an the lif e-cy cle co st of exi sting con dition. The m agnitu de of th e cost is th e difference between the life-cycle cost of the proposed improvement less the life-cycle cost of the existing condition.

Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
The operations and maintenance performance measure incorporate common annualized costs associated with operating and maintaining the proposed type of intersection control. Common costs include signal timing and maintenance, power consumption for signal operations and intersection illumination, landscape maintenance, and pavement rehabilitation. Average annualized costs were used.

Initial Capital Costs
The initial capital costs performance measure estimates the capital costs needed to plan, design, and construct the proposed intersection improvement. The capital costs include construction, capital support, and right of way.

As described in the United States Department of Transportation’s Benefit-Cost Analysis Guidance for Discretionary Grant Programs (Jan. 2020 , p. 6), a blend of “localized data with national estimates or industry standards to complete a more robust analysis” can be applied. The default parameters for the 2020 INFRA Cal-B/C tool are a blend of California and national values assessed at a 2018 base year.

Users should revise default parameters if more applicable values exist for a project being assessed. Revisions can be made within the “Parameters” tab of the Excel workbook by entering a new value into the individual cell. In addition, assumptions identified in the “Project Information” tab (red or blue cells) can be adjusted based for a specific project, e.g., average vehicle occupancy, percent truck, roadway type, etc. The table below is a comparison of California and national values—assumed 2020 INFRA Cal-B/C values are highlighted in yellow.

Parameters Cal-B/C Values Fed. Values Notes
Current Dollar Value applied
in tool 2018 2018
All assumed Cal-B/C parameters are adjusted for 2018 dollars.

Assumed Cal-B/C values in the model have been escalated to 2018 dollars, as recommended in the guidance.

Real Discount Rate 4.00% 7.00% A sensitivity analysis of 3% is no longer required.

Average Vehicle Occupancy

1.67 Cal-B/C factors in peak and non-peak average vehicle occupancy, whereas the federal guidance uses a single AVO figure. Thus, the default values apply to California statewide average.

Non-peak – 1.3
Peak – 1.15
Period of analysis Construction, plus 20
years after completion.

Construction, plus 20 years
after completion in most
situations.

Federal guidance suggests applying no more than 30 years for analytical purposes after project completion.

Travel Time Parameters
Statewide Average Hourly
Wage ($/hr.) $28.44 California values extracted from BLS data.

Heavy and Light Truck
Drivers Average Hourly
Wage ($/hr.)
$21.20 California values extracted from BLS data.

Heavy and Light Truck
Drivers Benefits and Costs
($/hr.)
$11.08 California values extracted from BLS data.

Automobile/Personal
($/hr./per) $14.20 $15.20
For calculation methodology, see Cal-B/C tech doc. (Volume 4), pp. II-37 to II-38.

Link : https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/f0009451- cal-bctechsupplementvol4v4-a11y.pdf
Truck/Business ($/hr./veh.) $32.30 $29.50
For calculation methodology, see Cal-B/C tech doc. (Volume 4), pp. II-37 to II-38.

Link: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/f0009451- cal-bctechsupplementvol4v4-a11y.pdf
Auto & Truck
Composite/All Purpose
($/hr./veh)
$19.70 $25.55
Federal weighted average based on a typical distribution of local travel by surface modes (95.4% personal, 4.6% truck). California assumes a different distribution (91% personal, 9% truck). Applicants should apply their own distribution of business versus personal travel if available.

Transit/Transit Rail
Operators ($/hr./per)
$14.20 (passenger)
$15.20 (local personal
travel) Cal-B/C only values “transit” per passenger. Federal guidance states, for wait times, the value should be doubled. Values for personal travel based on local travel values and intercity personal travel are described in US DOT’s Value of Travel Time guidance. A valuation of the “transit operator” is also not a factor in the Cal-B/C model.

$21.30 (intercity personal
travel)
$50.20 (transit rail
operator)
Average Fuel Price
Automobile (regular
unleaded) ($/gal) $3.31
Fuel prices for gasoline and diesel were extracted the US Energy Information Administration's 2018 Petroleum and Other Liquids annual report.

For calculation methodology, see Cal-B/C tech doc. (Volume 4), pp. II-37 to II-38. pp. II-37 to II-46.

Link: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/f0009451- cal-bctechsupplementvol4v4-a11y.pdf
Truck (diesel) ($/gal.) $3.44
Fuel prices for gasoline and diesel were extracted the US Energy Information Administration's 2017 Petroleum and Other Liquids annual report.

Link: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-
media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/f0009451- cal-bctechsupplementvol4v4-a11y.pdf
State Sales Tax (gasoline) 2.25% Value is applicable to California.

State Sales Tax (diesel) 13.00% Value is applicable to California.

Average Local Sales Tax 0.50% Value is applicable to California.

Federal Fuel Excise Tax
(gasoline) ($/gal.)
$0.184
Federal Fuel Excise Tax
(diesel) ($/gal.)
$0.244
State Fuel Excise Tax
(gasoline) ($/gal.)
$0.417 Value is applicable to California (current rate increased on 7/19 to $0.473)
State Fuel Excise Tax
(diesel) ($/gal.) $0.36 Value is applicable to California (reflective of Nov. 2017 SB-1 increase) Non-Fuel Cost Per Mile
Automobile $0.326
Federal guidance does not provide an estimate. Non-fuel costs are based on 2016 Cal-B/C estimate and escalated to 2018 using OMB Table

10.1 GDP. Cal-B/C auto value assessed at 3.13 cents (2016) and base value for truck is ATRI (2014) value.

Truck/Light Duty Vehicles $0.434 $0.41
Cal-B/C breaks out fuel and non-fuel costs. US DOT Guidance factors in fuel costs when estimating vehicle operation costs. Truck was escalated using 2018 divided by 2014 indices, as the base year in the model was 2016.

Commercial Trucks $0.96
Cal-B/C breaks out fuel and non-fuel costs for commercial trucks. US DOT Guidance factors in fuel costs, repair, insurance, permits, license, etc.

Accident Cost Parameters
Cost of Fatality/Killed $9.8M $9.6M
Accident costs are based on reported federal benefit-cost guidance rate for 2018. The assumed rate in the 2016 Cal-B/C model differs.

Level A (Severe)/Incapacitating $467,000 $459,100
Accident costs are based on reported federal benefit-cost guidance rate for 2018. The assumed rate in the 2016 Cal-B/C model differs.

Level B (Moderate)/Non-
incapacitating $127,100 $125,000
Accident costs are based on reported federal benefit-cost guidance rate for 2018. The assumed rate in the 2016 Cal-B/C model differs.

Level (Minor)/Possible Injury $65,000 $63,900
Accident costs are based on reported federal benefit-cost guidance rate for 2018. The assumed rate in the 2016 Cal-B/C model differs.

Cost of Property Damage (PDO) $4,374 $4,400 Accident costs are based on reported federal benefit-cost guidance rate for 2018. The assumed rate in the 2016 Cal-B/C model differs.

Pollutant Emissions
CO $75 - $160 $0
Cal-B/C estimates are based on Corporate Average Fuel Economy for MY2017-MY2025 Passenger Cars and Light Trucks (August 2012), page 922, Table VIII-16, “Economic Values Used for Benefits Computations (2010 dollars)”. Values are inflated from 2010 dollars to 2016 dollars using the GDP deflator. Cal-B/C rates vary depending on project location. Cal-B/C calculation methodology can be viewed in its tech. doc. vol. 4, pp. II -51 to II-61. Cal-B/C value differs based on geographic three regional categories within California.

Link: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation- planning/documents/f0009451-cal-bctechsupplementvol4v4-a11y.pdf

No value identified in the federal guidance document, thus, no value assessed.

CO2 $38 $0.91
USDOT recommends using a monetary value of $1 per metric ton (2018) for the social cost of carbon based on the Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule for Model Years 2021- 2026 report. However, Cal-B/C’s CO2 unit of measurement is in short ton. Thus, the conversion value is $1 per metric divided by 1.1023 short ton equals $0.91.

NOX $13,900 –
$63,900 $8,600 Cal-B/C value differs based on three regional categories within California.

Applied the 2018 federal rate.

PM10 $107,700 –
$523,300 $387,300 Cal-B/C value differs based on three regional categories within California.

Applied the 2018 federal rate.

SO2 $54,400 –
$196,600 $50,100 Cal-B/C value differs based on three regional categories within California.

Applied the 2018 federal rate.

VOC $1,025 –
$3,970 $2,100 Cal-B/C value differs based on three regional categories within California.

Applied the 2018 federal rate.

ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix H
HSM Predictive Method Safety Analysis IHSDM KABCO Values US 101 SB Ramps at Terven Ave/Airport Blvd
Year Total K A B C O
KABC PDO 0.23% 2.26% 12.19% 37.57% 47.75%
- - 0.009 0.082 0.444 1.368 1.738
KABC PDO 0.24% 2.27% 12.24% 37.75% 47.50%
- - 0.009 0.087 0.468 1.443 1.816
KABC PDO 0.23% 2.22% 11.97% 36.90% 48.69%
- - 0.006 0.061 0.327 1.009 1.332
KABC PDO 0.23% 2.23% 12.01% 37.02% 48.52%
- - 0.007 0.064 0.343 1.056 1.384
Year Total K A B C O
KABC PDO 0.23% 2.26% 12.19% 37.59% 47.73%
- - 0.009 0.082 0.444 1.369 1.738
KABC PDO 0.24% 2.27% 12.25% 37.76% 47.49%
- - 0.009 0.087 0.468 1.444 1.816
KABC PDO 0.23% 2.22% 11.97% 36.91% 48.67%
- - 0.006 0.061 0.328 1.010 1.332
KABC PDO 0.23% 2.23% 12.01% 37.03% 48.50%
- - 0.007 0.064 0.343 1.057 1.384
Year Total K A B C O
KABC PDO 0.08% 0.80% 4.34% 13.37% 81.40%

0.288 1.379 0.002 0.024 0.128 0.394 2.397
KABC PDO 0.08% 0.81% 4.36% 13.44% 81.31%

0.288 1.385 0.003 0.025 0.135 0.416 2.515
KABC PDO 0.08% 0.79% 4.26% 13.13% 81.73%

0.288 1.358 0.002 0.017 0.094 0.291 1.809
KABC PDO 0.08% 0.79% 4.27% 13.18% 81.67%

0.288 1.362 0.002 0.018 0.099 0.304 1.885
Existing Signal Safety Values
2025 3.64
2036 2.74
2035 3.82
2045 2.85
CMF
2045

2.94 2.31
2045 2.85
Proposed Roundabout Safety Values
CMF
Proposed Signal Safety Values
2035 3.09
2036 2.21
2025
CMF
2025 3.64
2035 3.82
2036 2.74

Interactive Highway Safety Design ModelCrash Prediction Evaluation Report January 29, 2021
DisclaimerThe Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department ofTransportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or usethereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in thissoftware and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.Limited Warranty and Limitations of RemediesThis software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to theimplied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functionscontained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted anderror-free.Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or otherincidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have beenadvised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.NoticeThe use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agreesthat the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the FederalGovernment shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software,including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Governmentharmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or anyentity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or anyentity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

Table of Contents Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3List of TablesTable Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Report OverviewReport Generated:Jan 29, 2021 5:00 PMReport Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Oct 12, 2020 9:15 AM)Evaluation Date: Thu Jan 28 17:48:06 PST 2021IHSDM Version: v16.0.0 (Sep 30, 2020)Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|)User Name: jared.caliseOrganization Name:Phone:E-Mail:Project Title: Salinas ICE - US 101 SB at Terven AveProject Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:50:16 PST 2021Project Unit System: U.S. CustomarySite Set: Existing - SignalizedSite Set Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:53:45 PST 2021Site Set Version: v1Evaluation Title: Existing - 2025Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 17:47:49 PST 2021Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. CustomaryCalibration: HSM ConfigurationCrash Distribution: HSM ConfigurationModel/CMF: HSM ConfigurationFirst Year of Analysis: 2025Last Year of Analysis: 2025Empirical-Bayes Analysis: NoneDisclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction MethodIMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION(2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70 AND 17-58Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersectionfacility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Report Overview
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 1
The IHSDM Crash Prediction Module (CPM) is intended as a faithful implementation of HSM Part C predictive methods. AsNCHRP projects to develop new predictive methods for the HSM are completed, FHWA works to incorporate the new methodsinto IHSDM, sometimes in advance of publication in the HSM. The following new crash predictive methods have been acceptedby NCHRP project panels and incorporated into IHSDM, while pending AASHTO's approval for incorporation into a futureedition of the HSM:- Roundabouts: completed in 2018 under NCHRP Project 17-70, the new methods will provide improved outcomes for the safetyanalysis of roundabouts.- 6+ lane and one-way urban/suburban arterials (including models for segments and intersections): completed under NCHRPProject 17-58.However, in the absence of local calibration factors (see HSM-1 Part C, Appendix A for guidance on calibration of the predictivemodels), it is neither appropriate nor advisable to directly compare the results from new models (from NCHRP Projects 17-58and 17-70) to results from HSM-1 models, as the models were not calibrated to the same base state data sets, and consequentlycan produce unexpected results. If local calibration factors are available and applied to both new models and HSM-1 models,then it may be appropriate to directly compare the results.[Note: Work being performed under NCHRP Project 17-72 (Update ofCrash Modification Factors for the Highway Safety Manual) is expected to re-calibrate many of the old (HSM-1) and new (e.g.,NCHRP 17-70) models to data from a single (or small number of) states, that would allow results from all models to be directlycompared.]The models produced for NCHRP Project 17-70 have independent value in terms of informing the design of a roundabout andassessing the effects of different design characteristics on the expected safety performance of a roundabout.The HSM-1 interim method previously included in IHSDM for evaluating roundabouts on urban/suburban arterials (i.e.,evaluating an existing intersection and then applying a Crash Modification Factor for replacing the existing intersection with aroundabout) has been deactivated in IHSDM, to minimize any confusion with the new roundabout methodology.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Section TypesUrban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation Site TypeType: 4SG_GE6Calibration Factor: 1Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection SitesSiteNo.Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADTPresence ofLightingNumber ofApproacheswith PermissiveLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproacheswithPermissive/Protected orProtected/Permissive Left-Turn PhasingNumber ofApproacheswith ProtectedLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproaches onwhich RightTurn on Red isProhibitedPresence ofRed-LightCamerasPedestrianVolumes Crossingall IntersectionLegs(crossings/day)Max. Number ofLanes Crossedby PedestriansNumber of BusStops within 1000ft of IntersectionNumber of Schoolswithin 1000 ft ofIntersectionNumber of AlcoholSales Establishmentswithin 1000 ft ofIntersection1 4SG2x2ge6 Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2025: 20680 2025: 17140 yes 0 0 4 0 no 50 4 0 0 1Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by SiteSiteNo.Type Highway Site DescriptionTotal PredictedCrashes forEvaluation PeriodPredicted TotalCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted FICrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted PDOCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted IntersectionTravel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh)Intersection CrashRate (crashes/yr)1 4SG Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 3.640 3.6402 1.9020 1.7382 0.26 3.6402Total Total 3.640 3.6402 1.9020 1.7382 0.26 3.6402Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6)Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)2025 3.64 1.90 52.249 1.74 47.751Total 3.64 1.90 52.249 1.74 47.751Average 3.64 1.90 52.249 1.74 47.751Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
independently.Table 4. Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash SeveritySite No.Fatal (K)Crashes(crashes)Incapacitating Injury (A)Crashes (crashes)Non-Incapacitating Injury(B) Crashes (crashes)Possible Injury(C) Crashes(crashes)No Injury(O) Crashes(crashes)1 0.0085 0.0823 0.4436 1.3676 1.7382Total 0.0085 0.0823 0.4436 1.3676 1.7382Table 5. Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type DistributionElement Type Crash TypeFatal and InjuryProperty DamageOnlyTotalCrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)Intersection Angle Collision 1.34 36.8 0.96 26.3 2.30 63.2Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.07 1.8 0.00 0.0 0.07 1.8Intersection Head-on Collision 0.17 4.6 0.08 2.2 0.25 6.8Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.05 1.4 0.04 1.1 0.09 2.5Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.02 0.6 0.11 2.9 0.13 3.5Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.04 1.0 0.00 0.0 0.04 1.0Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.15 4.1 0.26 7.1 0.41 11.2Intersection Sideswipe 0.07 1.9 0.30 8.2 0.37 10.0Intersection Total Intersection Total Vehicle Crashes 1.90 52.3 1.74 47.7 3.64 100.0Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 1.90 52.3 1.74 47.7 3.64 100.0Total Crashes 1.90 52.3 1.74 47.7 3.64 100.0Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because thedistribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5
Interactive Highway Safety Design ModelCrash Prediction Evaluation Report January 28, 2021
DisclaimerThe Interactive Highway Design Model (IHSDM) software is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department ofTransportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its content or usethereof. This document does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers' names may appear in thissoftware and documentation only because they are considered essential to the objective of the software.Limited Warranty and Limitations of RemediesThis software product is provided "as-is," without warranty of any kind-either expressed or implied (but not limited to theimplied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose). The FHWA do not warrant that the functionscontained in the software will meet the end-user's requirements or that the operation of the software will be uninterrupted anderror-free.Under no circumstances will the FHWA be liable to the end-user for any damages or claimed lost profits, lost savings, or otherincidental or consequential damages rising out of the use or inability to use the software (even if these organizations have beenadvised of the possibility of such damages), or for any claim by any other party.NoticeThe use of the IHSDM software is being done strictly on a voluntary basis. In exchange for provision of IHSDM, the user agreesthat the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation and any other agency of the FederalGovernment shall not be responsible for any errors, damage or other liability that may result from any and all use of the software,including installation and testing of the software. The user further agrees to hold the FHWA and the Federal Governmentharmless from any resulting liability. The user agrees that this hold harmless provision shall flow to any person to whom or anyentity to which the user provides the IHSDM software. It is the user's full responsibility to inform any person to whom or anyentity to which it provides the IHSDM software of this hold harmless provision.

Table of Contents Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3List of TablesTable Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Report OverviewReport Generated:Jan 28, 2021 5:49 PMReport Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Oct 12, 2020 9:15 AM)Evaluation Date: Thu Jan 28 17:48:57 PST 2021IHSDM Version: v16.0.0 (Sep 30, 2020)Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|)User Name: jared.caliseOrganization Name:Phone:E-Mail:Project Title: Salinas ICE - US 101 SB at Terven AveProject Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:50:16 PST 2021Project Unit System: U.S. CustomarySite Set: Existing - SignalizedSite Set Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:53:45 PST 2021Site Set Version: v1Evaluation Title: Existing - 2035Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 17:48:43 PST 2021Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. CustomaryCalibration: HSM ConfigurationCrash Distribution: HSM ConfigurationModel/CMF: HSM ConfigurationFirst Year of Analysis: 2035Last Year of Analysis: 2035Empirical-Bayes Analysis: NoneDisclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction MethodIMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION(2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70 AND 17-58Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersectionfacility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Section TypesUrban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation Site TypeType: 4SG_GE6Calibration Factor: 1Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection SitesSiteNo.Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADTPresence ofLightingNumber ofApproacheswith PermissiveLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproacheswithPermissive/Protected orProtected/Permissive Left-Turn PhasingNumber ofApproacheswith ProtectedLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproaches onwhich RightTurn on Red isProhibitedPresence ofRed-LightCamerasPedestrianVolumes Crossingall IntersectionLegs(crossings/day)Max. Number ofLanes Crossedby PedestriansNumber of BusStops within 1000ft of IntersectionNumber of Schoolswithin 1000 ft ofIntersectionNumber of AlcoholSales Establishmentswithin 1000 ft ofIntersection1 4SG2x2ge6 Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2035: 23263 2035: 18466 yes 0 0 4 0 no 50 4 0 0 1Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by SiteSiteNo.Type Highway Site DescriptionTotal PredictedCrashes forEvaluation PeriodPredicted TotalCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted FICrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted PDOCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted IntersectionTravel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh)Intersection CrashRate (crashes/yr)1 4SG Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 3.823 3.8226 2.0067 1.8159 0.25 3.8226Total Total 3.823 3.8226 2.0067 1.8159 0.25 3.8226Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6)Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)2035 3.82 2.01 52.496 1.82 47.504Total 3.82 2.01 52.496 1.82 47.504Average 3.82 2.01 52.496 1.82 47.504Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
independently.Table 4. Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash SeveritySite No.Fatal (K)Crashes(crashes)Incapacitating Injury (A)Crashes (crashes)Non-Incapacitating Injury(B) Crashes (crashes)Possible Injury(C) Crashes(crashes)No Injury(O) Crashes(crashes)1 0.0090 0.0868 0.4680 1.4429 1.8159Total 0.0090 0.0868 0.4680 1.4429 1.8159Table 5. Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type DistributionElement Type Crash TypeFatal and InjuryProperty DamageOnlyTotalCrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)Intersection Angle Collision 1.42 37.0 1.00 26.2 2.42 63.3Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.07 1.8 0.00 0.0 0.07 1.8Intersection Head-on Collision 0.18 4.6 0.08 2.2 0.26 6.8Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.06 1.4 0.04 1.0 0.10 2.5Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.02 0.6 0.11 2.9 0.13 3.5Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.04 1.0 0.00 0.0 0.04 1.0Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.16 4.1 0.27 7.0 0.43 11.1Intersection Sideswipe 0.07 1.9 0.31 8.1 0.38 10.0Intersection Total Intersection Total Vehicle Crashes 2.01 52.5 1.82 47.5 3.82 100.0Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 2.01 52.5 1.82 47.5 3.82 100.0Total Crashes 2.01 52.5 1.82 47.5 3.82 100.0Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because thedistribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table of Contents Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3List of TablesTable Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Report OverviewReport Generated:Jan 28, 2021 5:51 PMReport Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Oct 12, 2020 9:15 AM)Evaluation Date: Thu Jan 28 17:51:07 PST 2021IHSDM Version: v16.0.0 (Sep 30, 2020)Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|)User Name: jared.caliseOrganization Name:Phone:E-Mail:Project Title: Salinas ICE - US 101 SB at Terven AveProject Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:50:16 PST 2021Project Unit System: U.S. CustomarySite Set: Existing - SignalizedSite Set Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:53:45 PST 2021Site Set Version: v1Evaluation Title: Existing - 2036Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 17:50:54 PST 2021Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. CustomaryCalibration: HSM ConfigurationCrash Distribution: HSM ConfigurationModel/CMF: HSM ConfigurationFirst Year of Analysis: 2036Last Year of Analysis: 2036Empirical-Bayes Analysis: NoneDisclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction MethodIMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION(2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70 AND 17-58Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersectionfacility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Section TypesUrban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation Site TypeType: 4SG_GE6Calibration Factor: 1Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection SitesSiteNo.Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADTPresence ofLightingNumber ofApproacheswith PermissiveLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproacheswithPermissive/Protected orProtected/Permissive Left-Turn PhasingNumber ofApproacheswith ProtectedLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproaches onwhich RightTurn on Red isProhibitedPresence ofRed-LightCamerasPedestrianVolumes Crossingall IntersectionLegs(crossings/day)Max. Number ofLanes Crossedby PedestriansNumber of BusStops within 1000ft of IntersectionNumber of Schoolswithin 1000 ft ofIntersectionNumber of AlcoholSales Establishmentswithin 1000 ft ofIntersection1 4SG2x2ge6 Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2036: 13207 2036: 10385 yes 0 0 4 0 no 50 4 0 0 1Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by SiteSiteNo.Type Highway Site DescriptionTotal PredictedCrashes forEvaluation PeriodPredicted TotalCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted FICrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted PDOCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted IntersectionTravel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh)Intersection CrashRate (crashes/yr)1 4SG Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2.735 2.7352 1.4035 1.3318 0.32 2.7352Total Total 2.735 2.7352 1.4035 1.3318 0.32 2.7352Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6)Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)2036 2.73 1.40 51.311 1.33 48.689Total 2.73 1.40 51.311 1.33 48.689Average 2.73 1.40 51.311 1.33 48.689Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
independently.Table 4. Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash SeveritySite No.Fatal (K)Crashes(crashes)Incapacitating Injury (A)Crashes (crashes)Non-Incapacitating Injury(B) Crashes (crashes)Possible Injury(C) Crashes(crashes)No Injury(O) Crashes(crashes)1 0.0063 0.0607 0.3273 1.0092 1.3318Total 0.0063 0.0607 0.3273 1.0092 1.3318Table 5. Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type DistributionElement Type Crash TypeFatal and InjuryProperty DamageOnlyTotalCrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)Intersection Angle Collision 0.99 36.1 0.73 26.9 1.72 63.0Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.05 1.8 0.00 0.0 0.05 1.8Intersection Head-on Collision 0.12 4.5 0.06 2.2 0.18 6.7Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.04 1.4 0.03 1.1 0.07 2.5Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.02 0.6 0.08 3.0 0.10 3.5Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.03 1.1 0.00 0.0 0.03 1.1Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.11 4.0 0.20 7.2 0.31 11.2Intersection Sideswipe 0.05 1.8 0.23 8.3 0.28 10.2Intersection Total Intersection Total Vehicle Crashes 1.41 51.3 1.33 48.7 2.74 100.0Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 1.41 51.3 1.33 48.7 2.74 100.0Total Crashes 1.41 51.3 1.33 48.7 2.74 100.0Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because thedistribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table of Contents Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3List of TablesTable Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Report OverviewReport Generated:Jan 28, 2021 5:52 PMReport Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Oct 12, 2020 9:15 AM)Evaluation Date: Thu Jan 28 17:51:25 PST 2021IHSDM Version: v16.0.0 (Sep 30, 2020)Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|)User Name: jared.caliseOrganization Name:Phone:E-Mail:Project Title: Salinas ICE - US 101 SB at Terven AveProject Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:50:16 PST 2021Project Unit System: U.S. CustomarySite Set: Existing - SignalizedSite Set Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:53:45 PST 2021Site Set Version: v1Evaluation Title: Existing - 2045Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 17:51:13 PST 2021Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. CustomaryCalibration: HSM ConfigurationCrash Distribution: HSM ConfigurationModel/CMF: HSM ConfigurationFirst Year of Analysis: 2045Last Year of Analysis: 2045Empirical-Bayes Analysis: NoneDisclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction MethodIMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION(2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70 AND 17-58Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersectionfacility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Section TypesUrban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation Site TypeType: 4SG_GE6Calibration Factor: 1Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection SitesSiteNo.Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADTPresence ofLightingNumber ofApproacheswith PermissiveLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproacheswithPermissive/Protected orProtected/Permissive Left-Turn PhasingNumber ofApproacheswith ProtectedLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproaches onwhich RightTurn on Red isProhibitedPresence ofRed-LightCamerasPedestrianVolumes Crossingall IntersectionLegs(crossings/day)Max. Number ofLanes Crossedby PedestriansNumber of BusStops within 1000ft of IntersectionNumber of Schoolswithin 1000 ft ofIntersectionNumber of AlcoholSales Establishmentswithin 1000 ft ofIntersection1 4SG2x2ge6 Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2045: 14340 2045: 11130 yes 0 0 4 0 no 50 4 0 0 1Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by SiteSiteNo.Type Highway Site DescriptionTotal PredictedCrashes forEvaluation PeriodPredicted TotalCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted FICrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted PDOCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted IntersectionTravel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh)Intersection CrashRate (crashes/yr)1 4SG Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2.853 2.8525 1.4686 1.3840 0.31 2.8525Total Total 2.853 2.8525 1.4686 1.3840 0.31 2.8525Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6)Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)2045 2.85 1.47 51.483 1.38 48.517Total 2.85 1.47 51.483 1.38 48.517Average 2.85 1.47 51.483 1.38 48.517Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
independently.Table 4. Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash SeveritySite No.Fatal (K)Crashes(crashes)Incapacitating Injury (A)Crashes (crashes)Non-Incapacitating Injury(B) Crashes (crashes)Possible Injury(C) Crashes(crashes)No Injury(O) Crashes(crashes)1 0.0066 0.0635 0.3425 1.0560 1.3840Total 0.0066 0.0635 0.3425 1.0560 1.3840Table 5. Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type DistributionElement Type Crash TypeFatal and InjuryProperty DamageOnlyTotalCrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)Intersection Angle Collision 1.03 36.2 0.76 26.8 1.80 63.0Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.05 1.8 0.00 0.0 0.05 1.8Intersection Head-on Collision 0.13 4.5 0.06 2.2 0.19 6.7Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.04 1.4 0.03 1.1 0.07 2.5Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.02 0.6 0.08 3.0 0.10 3.5Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.03 1.1 0.00 0.0 0.03 1.1Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.12 4.0 0.20 7.2 0.32 11.2Intersection Sideswipe 0.05 1.8 0.24 8.3 0.29 10.1Intersection Total Intersection Total Vehicle Crashes 1.47 51.5 1.38 48.5 2.85 100.0Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 1.47 51.5 1.38 48.5 2.85 100.0Total Crashes 1.47 51.5 1.38 48.5 2.85 100.0Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because thedistribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table of Contents Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3List of TablesTable Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Report OverviewReport Generated:Jan 28, 2021 6:26 PMReport Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Oct 12, 2020 9:15 AM)Evaluation Date: Thu Jan 28 18:24:40 PST 2021IHSDM Version: v16.0.0 (Sep 30, 2020)Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|)User Name: jared.caliseOrganization Name:Phone:E-Mail:Project Title: Salinas ICE - US 101 SB at Terven AveProject Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:50:16 PST 2021Project Unit System: U.S. CustomarySite Set: Proposed - Signal Alt 2Site Set Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 17:31:38 PST 2021Site Set Version: v1Evaluation Title: ProposedEvaluation Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 18:24:29 PST 2021Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. CustomaryCalibration: HSM ConfigurationCrash Distribution: HSM ConfigurationModel/CMF: HSM ConfigurationFirst Year of Analysis: 2025Last Year of Analysis: 2025Empirical-Bayes Analysis: NoneDisclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction MethodIMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION(2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70 AND 17-58Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersectionfacility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Section TypesUrban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation Site TypeType: 4SG_GE6Calibration Factor: 1Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection SitesSiteNo.Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADTPresence ofLightingNumber ofApproacheswith PermissiveLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproacheswithPermissive/Protected orProtected/Permissive Left-Turn PhasingNumber ofApproacheswith ProtectedLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproaches onwhich RightTurn on Red isProhibitedPresence ofRed-LightCamerasPedestrianVolumes Crossingall IntersectionLegs(crossings/day)Max. Number ofLanes Crossedby PedestriansNumber of BusStops within 1000ft of IntersectionNumber of Schoolswithin 1000 ft ofIntersectionNumber of AlcoholSales Establishmentswithin 1000 ft ofIntersection1 4SG2x2ge6 Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2025: 20680 2025: 17140 yes 0 0 4 0 no 50 5 0 0 1Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by SiteSiteNo.Type Highway Site DescriptionTotal PredictedCrashes forEvaluation PeriodPredicted TotalCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted FICrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted PDOCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted IntersectionTravel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh)Intersection CrashRate (crashes/yr)1 4SG Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 3.642 3.6417 1.9034 1.7382 0.26 3.6417Total Total 3.642 3.6417 1.9034 1.7382 0.26 3.6417Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6)Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)2025 3.64 1.90 52.268 1.74 47.732Total 3.64 1.90 52.268 1.74 47.732Average 3.64 1.90 52.268 1.74 47.732Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
independently.Table 4. Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash SeveritySite No.Fatal (K)Crashes(crashes)Incapacitating Injury (A)Crashes (crashes)Non-Incapacitating Injury(B) Crashes (crashes)Possible Injury(C) Crashes(crashes)No Injury(O) Crashes(crashes)1 0.0085 0.0823 0.4439 1.3687 1.7382Total 0.0085 0.0823 0.4439 1.3687 1.7382Table 5. Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type DistributionElement Type Crash TypeFatal and InjuryProperty DamageOnlyTotalCrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)Intersection Angle Collision 1.34 36.8 0.96 26.3 2.30 63.2Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.07 1.8 0.00 0.0 0.07 1.8Intersection Head-on Collision 0.17 4.6 0.08 2.2 0.25 6.8Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.05 1.4 0.04 1.1 0.09 2.5Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.02 0.6 0.11 2.9 0.13 3.5Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.04 1.0 0.00 0.0 0.04 1.0Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.15 4.1 0.26 7.1 0.41 11.2Intersection Sideswipe 0.07 1.9 0.30 8.2 0.37 10.0Intersection Total Intersection Total Vehicle Crashes 1.91 52.3 1.74 47.7 3.64 100.0Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 1.91 52.3 1.74 47.7 3.64 100.0Total Crashes 1.91 52.3 1.74 47.7 3.64 100.0Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because thedistribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table of Contents Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3List of TablesTable Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Report OverviewReport Generated:Jan 28, 2021 6:26 PMReport Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Oct 12, 2020 9:15 AM)Evaluation Date: Thu Jan 28 18:25:00 PST 2021IHSDM Version: v16.0.0 (Sep 30, 2020)Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|)User Name: jared.caliseOrganization Name:Phone:E-Mail:Project Title: Salinas ICE - US 101 SB at Terven AveProject Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:50:16 PST 2021Project Unit System: U.S. CustomarySite Set: Proposed - Signal Alt 2Site Set Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 17:31:38 PST 2021Site Set Version: v1Evaluation Title: Proposed - 2035Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 18:24:46 PST 2021Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. CustomaryCalibration: HSM ConfigurationCrash Distribution: HSM ConfigurationModel/CMF: HSM ConfigurationFirst Year of Analysis: 2035Last Year of Analysis: 2035Empirical-Bayes Analysis: NoneDisclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction MethodIMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION(2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70 AND 17-58Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersectionfacility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Section TypesUrban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation Site TypeType: 4SG_GE6Calibration Factor: 1Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection SitesSiteNo.Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADTPresence ofLightingNumber ofApproacheswith PermissiveLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproacheswithPermissive/Protected orProtected/Permissive Left-Turn PhasingNumber ofApproacheswith ProtectedLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproaches onwhich RightTurn on Red isProhibitedPresence ofRed-LightCamerasPedestrianVolumes Crossingall IntersectionLegs(crossings/day)Max. Number ofLanes Crossedby PedestriansNumber of BusStops within 1000ft of IntersectionNumber of Schoolswithin 1000 ft ofIntersectionNumber of AlcoholSales Establishmentswithin 1000 ft ofIntersection1 4SG2x2ge6 Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2035: 23263 2035: 18466 yes 0 0 4 0 no 50 5 0 0 1Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by SiteSiteNo.Type Highway Site DescriptionTotal PredictedCrashes forEvaluation PeriodPredicted TotalCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted FICrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted PDOCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted IntersectionTravel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh)Intersection CrashRate (crashes/yr)1 4SG Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 3.824 3.8241 2.0082 1.8159 0.25 3.8241Total Total 3.824 3.8241 2.0082 1.8159 0.25 3.8241Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6)Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)2035 3.82 2.01 52.515 1.82 47.485Total 3.82 2.01 52.515 1.82 47.485Average 3.82 2.01 52.515 1.82 47.485Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
independently.Table 4. Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash SeveritySite No.Fatal (K)Crashes(crashes)Incapacitating Injury (A)Crashes (crashes)Non-Incapacitating Injury(B) Crashes (crashes)Possible Injury(C) Crashes(crashes)No Injury(O) Crashes(crashes)1 0.0090 0.0869 0.4683 1.4440 1.8159Total 0.0090 0.0869 0.4683 1.4440 1.8159Table 5. Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type DistributionElement Type Crash TypeFatal and InjuryProperty DamageOnlyTotalCrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)Intersection Angle Collision 1.42 37.0 1.00 26.2 2.42 63.2Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.07 1.8 0.00 0.0 0.07 1.8Intersection Head-on Collision 0.18 4.6 0.08 2.2 0.26 6.8Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.06 1.4 0.04 1.0 0.10 2.5Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.02 0.6 0.11 2.9 0.13 3.5Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.04 1.0 0.00 0.0 0.04 1.0Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.16 4.1 0.27 7.0 0.43 11.1Intersection Sideswipe 0.07 1.9 0.31 8.1 0.38 10.0Intersection Total Intersection Total Vehicle Crashes 2.01 52.5 1.82 47.5 3.83 100.0Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 2.01 52.5 1.82 47.5 3.83 100.0Total Crashes 2.01 52.5 1.82 47.5 3.83 100.0Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because thedistribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table of Contents Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3List of TablesTable Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Report OverviewReport Generated:Jan 28, 2021 6:26 PMReport Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Oct 12, 2020 9:15 AM)Evaluation Date: Thu Jan 28 18:25:28 PST 2021IHSDM Version: v16.0.0 (Sep 30, 2020)Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|)User Name: jared.caliseOrganization Name:Phone:E-Mail:Project Title: Salinas ICE - US 101 SB at Terven AveProject Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:50:16 PST 2021Project Unit System: U.S. CustomarySite Set: Proposed - Signal Alt 2Site Set Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 17:31:38 PST 2021Site Set Version: v1Evaluation Title: Proposed - 2036Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 18:25:15 PST 2021Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. CustomaryCalibration: HSM ConfigurationCrash Distribution: HSM ConfigurationModel/CMF: HSM ConfigurationFirst Year of Analysis: 2036Last Year of Analysis: 2036Empirical-Bayes Analysis: NoneDisclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction MethodIMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION(2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70 AND 17-58Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersectionfacility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Section TypesUrban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation Site TypeType: 4SG_GE6Calibration Factor: 1Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection SitesSiteNo.Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADTPresence ofLightingNumber ofApproacheswith PermissiveLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproacheswithPermissive/Protected orProtected/Permissive Left-Turn PhasingNumber ofApproacheswith ProtectedLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproaches onwhich RightTurn on Red isProhibitedPresence ofRed-LightCamerasPedestrianVolumes Crossingall IntersectionLegs(crossings/day)Max. Number ofLanes Crossedby PedestriansNumber of BusStops within 1000ft of IntersectionNumber of Schoolswithin 1000 ft ofIntersectionNumber of AlcoholSales Establishmentswithin 1000 ft ofIntersection1 4SG2x2ge6 Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2036: 13207 2036: 10385 yes 0 0 4 0 no 50 5 0 0 1Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by SiteSiteNo.Type Highway Site DescriptionTotal PredictedCrashes forEvaluation PeriodPredicted TotalCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted FICrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted PDOCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted IntersectionTravel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh)Intersection CrashRate (crashes/yr)1 4SG Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2.736 2.7364 1.4047 1.3318 0.32 2.7364Total Total 2.736 2.7364 1.4047 1.3318 0.32 2.7364Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6)Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)2036 2.74 1.41 51.332 1.33 48.668Total 2.74 1.41 51.332 1.33 48.668Average 2.74 1.41 51.332 1.33 48.668Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
independently.Table 4. Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash SeveritySite No.Fatal (K)Crashes(crashes)Incapacitating Injury (A)Crashes (crashes)Non-Incapacitating Injury(B) Crashes (crashes)Possible Injury(C) Crashes(crashes)No Injury(O) Crashes(crashes)1 0.0063 0.0608 0.3276 1.0100 1.3318Total 0.0063 0.0608 0.3276 1.0100 1.3318Table 5. Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type DistributionElement Type Crash TypeFatal and InjuryProperty DamageOnlyTotalCrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)Intersection Angle Collision 0.99 36.1 0.73 26.9 1.72 62.9Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.05 1.8 0.00 0.0 0.05 1.8Intersection Head-on Collision 0.12 4.5 0.06 2.2 0.18 6.7Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.04 1.4 0.03 1.1 0.07 2.5Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.02 0.6 0.08 3.0 0.10 3.5Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.03 1.1 0.00 0.0 0.03 1.1Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.11 4.0 0.20 7.2 0.31 11.2Intersection Sideswipe 0.05 1.8 0.23 8.3 0.28 10.2Intersection Total Intersection Total Vehicle Crashes 1.41 51.4 1.33 48.6 2.74 100.0Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 1.41 51.4 1.33 48.6 2.74 100.0Total Crashes 1.41 51.4 1.33 48.6 2.74 100.0Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because thedistribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Table of Contents Report Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Disclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Section Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Urban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3List of TablesTable Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Table Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash Severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5Table Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5List of Tables Crash Prediction Evaluation Report iv Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Report OverviewReport Generated:Jan 28, 2021 6:26 PMReport Template: System: Multi-Page [System] (sscpm2, Oct 12, 2020 9:15 AM)Evaluation Date: Thu Jan 28 18:25:51 PST 2021IHSDM Version: v16.0.0 (Sep 30, 2020)Site Set Crash Prediction Module: v|ModuleInfo.moduleVersion| (|ModuleInfo.moduleDate|)User Name: jared.caliseOrganization Name:Phone:E-Mail:Project Title: Salinas ICE - US 101 SB at Terven AveProject Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 15:50:16 PST 2021Project Unit System: U.S. CustomarySite Set: Proposed - Signal Alt 2Site Set Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 17:31:38 PST 2021Site Set Version: v1Evaluation Title: Proposed - 2045Evaluation Comment: Created Thu Jan 28 18:25:34 PST 2021Policy for Superelevation: AASHTO 2011 U.S. CustomaryCalibration: HSM ConfigurationCrash Distribution: HSM ConfigurationModel/CMF: HSM ConfigurationFirst Year of Analysis: 2045Last Year of Analysis: 2045Empirical-Bayes Analysis: NoneDisclaimer Regarding Crash Prediction MethodIMPORTANT NOTICE ABOUT COMPARING RESULTS FROM HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL FIRST EDITION(2010) MODELS TO RESULTS FROM NEW MODELS DEVELOPED UNDER NCHRP PROJECTS 17-70 AND 17-58Since the publication of the Highway Safety Manual - First Edition (HSM-1), in 2010 by the American Association of StateHighway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), multiple research efforts have been undertaken through the NationalCooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) to develop safety performance models for road segment and intersectionfacility types that were not initially reflected in the HSM-1, in order to expand the breadth and depth of the HSM in the future.

Report Overview Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
2 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
Section TypesUrban Arterial Site Set CPM Evaluation Site TypeType: 4SG_GE6Calibration Factor: 1Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 3
Table 1. Evaluation and Crash Data (CSD) (if applicable) Intersection SitesSiteNo.Type Highway Site Description Major AADT Minor AADTPresence ofLightingNumber ofApproacheswith PermissiveLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproacheswithPermissive/Protected orProtected/Permissive Left-Turn PhasingNumber ofApproacheswith ProtectedLeft-TurnPhasingNumber ofApproaches onwhich RightTurn on Red isProhibitedPresence ofRed-LightCamerasPedestrianVolumes Crossingall IntersectionLegs(crossings/day)Max. Number ofLanes Crossedby PedestriansNumber of BusStops within 1000ft of IntersectionNumber of Schoolswithin 1000 ft ofIntersectionNumber of AlcoholSales Establishmentswithin 1000 ft ofIntersection1 4SG2x2ge6 Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2045: 14340 2045: 11130 yes 0 0 4 0 no 50 5 0 0 1Table 2. Predicted Crash Frequencies and Rates by SiteSiteNo.Type Highway Site DescriptionTotal PredictedCrashes forEvaluation PeriodPredicted TotalCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted FICrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted PDOCrashFrequency(crashes/yr)Predicted IntersectionTravel Crash Rate(crashes/million veh)Intersection CrashRate (crashes/yr)1 4SG Terven Ave at Airport Blvd 2.854 2.8537 1.4698 1.3840 0.31 2.8537Total Total 2.854 2.8537 1.4698 1.3840 0.31 2.8537Table 3. Predicted Crash Frequencies by Year (4SG_GE6)Year Total Crashes FI Crashes Percent FI (%) PDO Crashes Percent PDO (%)2045 2.85 1.47 51.504 1.38 48.496Total 2.85 1.47 51.504 1.38 48.496Average 2.85 1.47 51.504 1.38 48.496Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because the distribution of these three crashes had been derived Section Types Crash Prediction Evaluation Report
4 Interactive Highway Safety Design Model
independently.Table 4. Predicted USA 4SG_GE6 Sites Crash SeveritySite No.Fatal (K)Crashes(crashes)Incapacitating Injury (A)Crashes (crashes)Non-Incapacitating Injury(B) Crashes (crashes)Possible Injury(C) Crashes(crashes)No Injury(O) Crashes(crashes)1 0.0066 0.0636 0.3428 1.0568 1.3840Total 0.0066 0.0636 0.3428 1.0568 1.3840Table 5. Predicted 4SG_GE6 Crash Type DistributionElement Type Crash TypeFatal and InjuryProperty DamageOnlyTotalCrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)CrashesCrashes(%)Intersection Angle Collision 1.03 36.2 0.76 26.8 1.80 63.0Intersection Collision with Bicycle 0.05 1.8 0.00 0.0 0.05 1.8Intersection Head-on Collision 0.13 4.5 0.06 2.2 0.19 6.7Intersection Other Multi-vehicle Collision 0.04 1.4 0.03 1.1 0.07 2.5Intersection Other Single-vehicle Collision 0.02 0.6 0.08 3.0 0.10 3.5Intersection Collision with Pedestrian 0.03 1.1 0.00 0.0 0.03 1.1Intersection Rear-end Collision 0.12 4.0 0.20 7.2 0.32 11.2Intersection Sideswipe 0.05 1.8 0.24 8.3 0.29 10.1Intersection Total Intersection Total Vehicle Crashes 1.47 51.5 1.38 48.5 2.85 100.0Intersection Total Intersection Crashes 1.47 51.5 1.38 48.5 2.85 100.0Total Crashes 1.47 51.5 1.38 48.5 2.85 100.0Note:Fatal and Injury Crashes and Property Damage Only Crashes do not necessarily sum up to Total Crashes because thedistribution of these three crashes had been derived independently.

Crash Prediction Evaluation Report Section Types
Interactive Highway Safety Design Model 5
ICE – US 101 Southbound Ramps at Terven Avenue/ Airport Boulevard August 10, 2021
Appendix I
Life-Cycle Benefit-Cost Worksheet
US 101 SB Ramps at T erven Ave/Airport Blvd
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost of Collisions 177,612$ 176,442$ 56,129$
Discounted Life Cycle Cost of Collisions 3,729,860$ 3,705,292$ 1,178,719$ Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Quantity (hours) 27,530 14,847 3,981
Annual Cost 395,666$ 214,887$ 58,386$
Tota l Discounted Life Cycle Cost 8,308,990$ 4,512,637$ 1,226,107$ Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual Cost 25,879$ 27,455$ 35,287$
Tota l Discounted Life Cycle Cost 351,700$ 373,123$ 479,559$ Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Annual O&M Costs 8,060$ 8,060$ 2,520$
Discounted Life Cycle O&M Costs 109,538$ 109,538$ 34,248$ Discounted Pavement Rehab Costs -$ 45,639$ 36,511$
Total O&M Costs 109,538$ 155,177$ 70,759$
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Approximate Initial Capital Costs $0 $743,300 $3,300,000 O&M
Delay
Emissions
Initial Capital

LIFE CYCLE COST CALCULATIONS

PERFORMANCE MEASURE LIFE CYCLE COST (NET PRESENT VALUE) Safety

US 101 SB Ramps at T erven Ave/Airport Blvd
Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout
Safety 3,729,860$ 3,705,292$ 1,178,719$
Delay 8,308,990$ 4,512,637$ 1,226,107$
Emission 351,700$ 373,123$ 479,559$
O&M 109,538$ 155,177$ 70,759$
Initial Capital -$ 743,300$ 3,300,000$
Total Net Present Value 12,500,089$ 9,489,529$ 6,255,143$ Added Benefits Compared to Existing (Signal) Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout Safety -$ 24,569$ 2,551,141$
Delay -$ 3,796,353$ 7,082,884$
Emission -$ (21,423)$ (127,859)$
Total Benefits -$ 3,799,498$ 9,506,166$
Added Cost Compared to Existing (Signal) Existing (Signal) Proposed Signal Roundabout O&M -$ 45,639$ (38,779)$
Initial Capital -$ 743,300$ 3,300,000$
Total Costs -$ 788,939$ 3,261,221$
B/C Ratio Compared to Existing (Signal) N/A 4.82 2.91
Total Costs ( C )
TOTAL PROJECT LIFE CYCLE SUMMARY FOR 20 YEARS

LIFE CYCLE BENEFIT COST RATIO
Total Benefits ( B )

US 101 SB Ramps at Terven A ve/A irport Blvd
B/C
( A ) ( B ) ( C ) = ( B - A ) ( D ) ( E ) ( F ) = ( C + D ) ( G ) = ( E / F ) High 817,630$ 2,970,000$ 2,152,370$ 2,067,952$ 2.81
Low 668,970$ 3,630,000$ 2,961,030$ 2,876,612$ 2.02
Roundabout Budget 743,300$ 6,640,822$ 5,897,522$ 5,813,103$ 1.00 Total Costs
(84,418)$ 5,813,103$
Note: The 'High' v alue calculates the highest Roundabout B/C. Assuming the high Proposed Signal ICC and the low Roundabout ICC.

The 'Low' v alue calculates the lowest Roundabout B/C. Assuming the low Proposed Signal ICC and the high Roundabout ICC.

Total Benefits
Benefit-Cost Ratio Calculations for Proposed Signal (A) vs Roundabout (B) B/C Target
Proposed Signal
Initial Capital Cost
Roundabout Added Cost
Project Constraints
Added O&M Cost for
Roundabout

Salinas City CouncilApril 12, 2022

Salinas City Council
April 12, 2022